Safe road use

Our 2020 goals

A Safe System assumes that even responsible road users will sometimes make mistakes. This does not mean that road users have no role to play in improving road safety. A Safe System demands safe and responsible road use and reducing unsafe behaviour is crucial.

Responsible users are competent, alert, comply with the road rules and are unimpaired by alcohol, drugs, distraction or fatigue. They take steps to improve their own safety and the safety of others. As citizens they demand and expect safety improvements, for example from vehicle manufacturers and road controlling authorities.

A Safe System assumes road users receive adequate information and education so they understand how to be a responsible road user.

REDUCING THE IMPACT OF ALCOHOL/DRUG IMPAIRED DRIVING

What is the problem?

• Alcohol/drug impaired driving is one of the largest causes of serious road crashes.
• In 2008, alcohol and drugs contributed to 31 percent of fatal crashes and 21 percent of serious injury crashes. These crashes resulted in 119 deaths, 582 serious injuries and 1,726 minor injuries. It is estimated that the social cost of crashes where alcohol/drugs were a factor was $841 million in 2008.
• Through the 1990s substantial progress was made in reducing the number of alcohol/drug-related deaths and serious injuries. However, we have made no further progress since 2000.

Drink driving

After drinking the brain works less efficiently, taking longer to receive messages from the eyes; processing information becomes more difficult, and instructions to the muscles are delayed. In driving, alcohol results in decreased vision, poor judgement, increased risk-taking, poor attention and decreased reaction time.

The effect of alcohol on driving has been comprehensively researched over the last 50 years. There are nearly 300 studies that look at the effect that increasing levels of alcohol have on a person’s ability to drive.

The findings from this extensive body of research are very consistent and show that driving starts to be impaired with very low levels of alcohol (this is typically measured as blood alcohol content (BAC*)). The vast majority of adult drivers are affected or impaired with a BAC of 0.05 with significant impairment at BAC 0.08.

*Blood alcohol is the amount of alcohol present in a 100 millilitre (mL) volume of blood. For example 50 mg is 0.05 grams, 0.05 grams of alcohol in 100 mLs is written as 0.05 percent. In other words, 50 mg is equal to 0.05 percent which is equal to 50 mg/dL (decilitre; 100 mLs). This value can also be described as BAC 0.05.

Recent research has demonstrated that the impairment is magnified when alcohol consumption and fatigue are combined.

The risk of being killed while driving in New Zealand at different BAC levels is shown in Table 6. The table uses New Zealand data on drivers involved in fatal crashes*.

*Keall, M.D, Frith, W.J and Patterson, T.L. (2004) The influence of alcohol, age and the number of passengers on the night-time risk of driver injury in New Zealand. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 36(1), 49-61.

Relative risk of fatal crash by blood alcohol level

BAC	30+ years	20-29 years	15-19 years
0	1	3	5.3
0.03	2.9	8.7	15
0.05	5.8	17.5	30.3
0.08	16.5	50.2	86.6

The table shows that at BAC 0.08, adult drivers aged over 30 years are about 16 times as likely to be involved in a fatal crash than if they were sober. Adults aged between 20 and 29 years are about 50 times as likely. These same results are shown graphically in Figure 8.

As can be seen from the graph, at BAC levels greater than 0.08 the rate of exponential increase in risk is greater.

Two standard drinks is broadly equivalent to a BAC of 0.05, or 50 mg of alcohol per 100 ml of blood. For men of average height and weight it equates to two standard drinks in the first hour and one standard drink per hour thereafter. For women of average height and weight a BAC of 0.05 equates to one standard drink per hour.

Our current BAC of 0.08 allows people to become significantly impaired and still legally drive. It allows a man of average height and weight to consume six standard drinks within 90 minutes. For a woman*  it allows four standard drinks to be consumed.

*Also of average height and weight – individuals process alcohol at different rates and these estimates are only guides.

In terms of the progress we have made to reduce alcohol-related crashes, Figure 9 shows that through the 1990s substantial progress was made in reducing the number of alcohol/drug related deaths and serious injuries. However, we have made no further progress since 2000.  

 

In comparison with Australia, where an adult drink drive limit of BAC 0.05 has been in place for many years, New Zealand experiences a higher level of alcohol-related road crashes.

Based on the Australian results for 2006 (the latest available), around 22 Australians die in alcohol-related road crashes per one million population. This compares with 28 New Zealanders per one million population in 2008. Of the limited state data that is available, in Victoria, 16 Australians die per one million population in alcohol-related crashes.

Another indicator of the prevalence of drink driving is the results from Police breath testing operations. Nationally about 1 in 150 Australian drivers tested exceed the legal limit of BAC 0.05. In contrast, 1 in 85 New Zealand drivers exceed our limit of BAC 0.08. In Victoria the rate is 1 in 314 drivers tested and in Queensland it is 1 in 192 drivers tested.

Drugged driving

In comparison to drink driving, less is known about the extent of drugged driving in New Zealand and the impact it has on road safety. However, evidence suggests that drugs may be a bigger factor in crashes than officially reported.

Preliminary results of a study of the blood of deceased drivers* show a number of trends that are of concern to road safety:

• 52 percent of drivers had used alcohol and/or drugs
• 31 percent of drivers had used cannabis with or without alcohol or other drugs
• 19 percent of drivers used alcohol and another drug(s)
• 14 percent had used drugs other than alcohol or cannabis, and the most commonly detected were methamphetamine, methadone and morphine.

*This study by the Institute of Environmental Science and Research Limited has been conducted over 2004–2009 and is using blood samples taken from all coronial cases. It is limited to 1,000 samples. The interim report which is quoted here has a sample size of 732.

We also know from the 2008 Illicit Drug Monitoring System report that 90 percent of frequent methamphetamine users, 62 percent of frequent ecstasy users, and 90 percent of frequent injecting drug users, have driven under the influence of a drug other than alcohol in the past six months. High proportions of frequent drug users report speeding, losing concentration, driving through a red light, or nearly hitting something while driving under the influence of a drug.

The report also shows that frequent drug users believe Police are less likely to detect them driving under the influence of a drug than drink driving.

What Safer Journeys will achieve

By 2020 the incidence of alcohol and drug impaired driving will be significantly reduced, with fewer people losing their lives or suffering serious injuries as a result of drunk or drugged drivers. We aim to reduce the level of fatalities and serious injuries caused by drink or drugged drivers to a level similar to that of Australia.

What actions can we take?

• Either, lower the adult drink drive limit to BAC 0.05 and introduce infringement penalties for offences between BAC 0.05 and 0.08
  Or, conduct research on the level of risk posed by drivers with a BAC between 0.05 and 0.08
• Address repeat offending and high BAC drink drivers through compulsory alcohol interlocks and a zero drink drive limit for offenders
• Review the traffic offences and penalties for causing death or injury
• Support the future introduction of random roadside drug testing with research.

Alcohol/drug impaired driving is not just a transport problem – it is a wider public health and social problem. Society’s attitudes to alcohol and drugs, including the importance placed on access to rehabilitation and treatment services, will significantly influence what we can achieve in road safety.

Nevertheless, we know that to address the persistent number of alcohol/drug-related road deaths and serious injuries, we need a more effective road safety response. We have to set safe limits that protect all road users and we need specific action to address repeat  offenders. This will be provided through the following key initiatives:

Lower the adult drink-drive limit to BAC 0.05

When asked how many drinks a person should be allowed to have before driving, most New Zealanders typically give an answer of two drinks or less. This equates to an adult drink drive limit of BAC 0.05.

For example, the following question was asked as part of the Ministry’s Public Attitudes to Road Safety Survey in 2009:

"A ‘standard drink’ is a measure of alcohol equivalent to one can of beer or one small glass of wine. How many standard drinks should a man/a woman [the same gender as the respondent was used] be allowed to have in an hour if he/she is planning to drive immediately afterwards?”

The survey sampled 1,650 adults and the responses to the question are summarised in Figure 10 below.

Based on the overall results, 85 percent of people surveyed said drivers should be limited to two or fewer drinks before driving. More than half (56 percent) said drivers should be limited to one drink or no drinks. Two percent said drivers should be permitted four or more drinks in an hour before driving.

Converting these numbers of drinks into BAC levels*, this survey suggests that only 2 percent of New Zealanders support the current adult limit of BAC 0.08. Eighty-five percent of people support an adult limit of BAC 0.05 or lower.

*The conversion of alcohol consumed into a BAC level can only ever be a guide as gender, body size, empty/full stomach, level of body fat all lead to variations between people. The conversion is based on a person of average height and weight.

International experience* shows that an effective response to drink driving is based on three building blocks:

• Police enforcement of drink-driving laws
• random breath testing
• legal blood alcohol limits set to a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of no more than 0.05.

*OECD 2008 Towards Zero: Ambitious Road Safety Targets and the Safe System Approach.  p 78.

We have two of these building blocks. Over the first three years of the strategy we will look to lower the legal drink-drive limit for adults to a BAC of 0.05, or 50 mg of alcohol per 100 ml of blood.

Lowering the adult drink-drive limit would be the strongest initiative in the area of Safe Road Use. It is estimated that each year this initiative could save between 15 and 30 lives and prevent between 320 and 686 injuries. This would be an annual social cost saving of between $111 million and $238 million.

Australian and Danish experience suggests that one of the key strengths of a limit of BAC 0.05 is its ability to reduce the number of drivers with very high blood alcohol levels (eg BAC 0.1 and above). For example, in the Australian Capital Territory following the lowering of the limit from BAC 0.08 to BAC 0.05, drivers stopped in random breath tests between the BAC limits of 0.15 and 0.2 declined by 34 percent, and those above 0.2 declined by 58 percent.

Reducing the number of drivers with very high levels of alcohol is important, as if we could reduce the number of drivers with very high blood alcohol levels, we would make a substantial impact on the number of alcohol-related deaths and serious injuries.

One reason a lowered limit is effective is that it encourages drivers to keep a better count of the drinks they consume in order to stay within the limit. As well, at BAC 0.05 people are required to make a responsible decision (to either stop drinking or to not drive) before their judgement is significantly impaired. Once blood alcohol content approaches 0.08, people are less able to make responsible decisions. In this way a lower BAC limit can have a strong preventative effect.

To ensure the new limits do not impose additional workload on the courts, infringement penalties could be introduced for adult offences between BAC 0.05 and BAC 0.079, and possibly for youth offences between BAC 0 and BAC 0.03. Above these limits criminal sanctions would continue to apply.

The infringement penalties would be a mixture of demerit points and instant fines. They would be tiered to reflect the severity of offending and repeat offending. Infringement penalties instantly reinforce the message that drink driving compromises safety. They would do this without the cost and delay of court-imposed sanctions.

The introduction of the lowered drink driving limits would be supported by a public awareness-raising campaign.

Conduct research on the level of risk posed by drivers with a BAC between 0.05 and 0.08

The role of a drink-drive limit is to specify the maximum level of road safety risk society is willing to tolerate from alcohol. There is significant confusion as to what level of alcohol use our current limit of BAC 0.08 represents. Most people are unaware of the amount of alcohol that can be consumed within the legal limit.

Although the great majority of submitters to the Safer Journeys' discussion document favour setting the drink drive is limit at a level of alcohol use that equates to a BAC of 0.05, or lower, the proposal is controversial, with some key stakeholders disagreeing with the proposals.
 
Some stakeholders also have questioned whether the level of risk from permitting people to drive with a BAC between 0.05 and 0.08 is significant. They point out that comparatively few New Zealanders are killed in alcohol-related transport incidents where drivers record a BAC in the 0.05–0.08 range.

We do not know the exact extent of the harm caused by drivers with a BAC between 0.05 and 0.08. From 2004 to 2008, 18,729 drivers were involved in fatal or serious injury crashes and, of these, 2,063 had a BAC level recorded in the crash analysis system. However, a further 1,329 drivers were suspected of being impaired by alcohol but a BAC was not recorded.

There are several reasons why the data is incomplete, including that:

• if a BAC reading is obtained, but it is lower than the legal limit of 0.08 for adults it is not required to be recorded
• at a crash scene it is not a priority to take a blood sample for analysis; the priority is to stabilise the person until they can be transferred to hospital
• fluid given to injured drivers to replace major blood loss compromises the accuracy of subsequent blood alcohol tests
• in some cases long time delays between the crash and the request for a blood alcohol sample from hospital staff mean a relevant BAC cannot be obtained.

However, based on the alcohol-related crashes that occurred over 2004–2008, we estimate that adult drivers with a BAC of between 0.05 and 0.08 are responsible for at least 7 deaths, 45 serious injuries and 102 minor injuries of the total 119 deaths, 582 serious injuries and 1,726 minor injuries that were caused by drunk and drugged drivers in 2008. These figures are based on the number of casualties where the blood alcohol levels are known, combined with an estimate for those where the blood alcohol levels are unknown.

This estimate equates to an annual social cost of $56.5 million for crashes caused by drivers with a BAC between 0.05 and 0.08. ACC estimate the cost to the ACC scheme of the claims arising from these road crashes to be $28.5 million.

We do know, however, that one of the key strengths of a lowered limit will be its ability to reduce the number of drivers with very high BAC levels. For example, in the Australian Capital Territory a lower limit achieved a 34% reduction in the number of drivers randomly breath tested with BACs between 0.15 and 0.2, and a 58 percent decrease in those over BAC 0.2.

As an alternative to lowering the adult drink-drive limit, we could do more research on the level of risk presented by drivers with a BAC of between 0.05 and 0.08.

To do this we could replicate, using New Zealand drivers, the overseas studies that look at the impairment effects of alcohol at different levels of BAC while driving.

We could also investigate whether we could better establish the level of crashes that are caused by drivers with a BAC between 0.05 and 0.08. This could involve requiring all drivers involved in crashes to be subject to a compulsory breath or blood test.

Address repeat offending and high level offending through compulsory alcohol interlocks

To move towards a Safe System we need to address repeat drink driving. The current approach of fines and licence disqualification works well in deterring most people from drink driving, but it fails for the 27 percent of drink drivers who re-offend.

To be successful in addressing repeat drink driving, we need to be open to new approaches. We will look to introduce compulsory alcohol interlocks in the first three years of the strategy. Alcohol interlock technology prevents a vehicle from being driven if the driver cannot provide a low or alcohol-free breath sample.

As the proposal is that the alcohol interlock programme will operate on a user-pays basis, it could offer a cost-effective way of responding to drink driving. There would, however, be costs to government with operating interlock programmes.

Alcohol interlocks represent a move beyond punishment and focus on preventing drink driving. As interlock programme participants are monitored, there is an opportunity for underlying drinking problems to be identified. This provides the potential for rehabilitation and treatment.

Work is underway on how alcohol interlocks could be introduced as an alternative to disqualification, for both first time and subsequent offenders. It is estimated that interlocks could save between two and seven lives each year and prevent between 32–128 injuries (depending on whether interlocks are applied from the first or second offence; whether they are installed for one year or two years; and whether a lifetime definition of repeat offender or a five year definition is used). This would be a social cost saving of between $12.3 million and $48 million.

Address repeat offending and high level offending through a zero drink-drive limit

We would also investigate imposing a zero BAC drink-drive limit on repeat offenders and first time offenders who have a high BAC level. Although the existing sanction of licence disqualification and the new initiative of alcohol interlocks mean that drink-drive offenders cannot drink and drive, a zero BAC limit would increase the effectiveness of these two sanctions. It would send a strong message that drink driving poses a significant risk to the safety of New Zealanders.

The duration of the zero BAC limit, for any offender, would be linked to the term of their licence disqualification or mandatory use of an alcohol interlock.

Review the traffic offences and penalties for causing death or injury

Many people, including members of the judiciary, are concerned that the penalties for traffic offences causing death or injury are too lenient. For example, the current offence for drink driving causing death or injury has penalties of a prison term of up to five years, or a maximum fine of $20,000, and disqualification for more than one year. The comparable offence in New South Wales has a maximum prison term of 14 years and Victoria has a maximum of 20 years.

We will review our offences and penalties to ensure they better reflect society’s view of the level of culpability of drink and drugged drivers who cause death and serious injury.

Support the potential for random roadside drug testing with research

The roadside drug impairment test, introduced in 2009, lays the foundation for tackling drugged driving. We will also look to complement the impairment test with random roadside testing for illegal drugs as technology allows. Illegal drugs include cannabis, methamphetamine, MDMA (ecstasy), heroin, cocaine (and 'crack'), LSD, GHB, amphetamines and prescription drugs that are abused.

With random testing, a police officer could require a driver to undergo a substance test (for example a saliva test) whether or not there is reason to suspect impairment. This would work in the same way as random breath testing for alcohol. By increasing the likelihood of being caught driving under the influence of impairing drugs, random testing would provide a greater deterrence to drugged driving.

To evaluate this future initiative, research will be carried out to establish the prevalence of drugged driving across the general driving population, as well as for drivers involved in crashes. This research would help us make informed decisions about which drugs pose a significant crash risk in New Zealand. We would then know which type of drug testing we should focus on.

PROBABLE FIRST STEPS

The first steps that we intend to take will be to:

• either lower the adult drink-drive limit to BAC 0.05 and introduce infringement penalties for offences between BAC 0.05 and 0.08 
  Or, conduct research on the level of risk posed by drivers with a BAC between 0.05 and 0.08
• address repeat offending and high level offending through compulsory alcohol interlocks
• address repeat offending and high level offending through a zero drink-drive limit
• review the traffic offences and penalties for causing death and injury.

INCREASING THE SAFETY OF YOUNG DRIVERS 

What is the problem?

• Road crashes are the single greatest killer of 15 to 24 year-olds, and the leading cause of their permanent injury.
• Young New Zealanders aged 15 to 24 years are 14.5 percent of New Zealand’s population yet in 2008 they were involved in around 37 percent of all fatal crashes and 38 percent of all serious injury crashes. This equates to a road fatality rate of 21 per 100,000 population, more than double New Zealand’s overall rate.
• Our 15 to 17 year olds have the highest road death rate in the OECD and our 18 to 20 year olds have the fourth highest.
• Crashes where young drivers were deemed at fault resulted in 122 deaths and 800 serious injuries in 2008. The social cost of these crashes was approximately $1.1 billion. 
• Our young people have lower levels of safety compared with their peers in other developed countries. For example, young Australians have a road fatality rate of 13 per 100,000 of population, while young New Zealanders have a fatality rate of 21 per 100,000 of population. If New Zealand had the same road fatality rate for 15 to 24 year olds as Australia, then in 2009 25 lives would have been saved.

Since 2000 we have made no progress in increasing the safety of young drivers. From 2000 to 2008 the number of people killed or seriously injured in crashes where a young driver was at fault increased by about 17 percent. This compares with a 6 percent increase across all road users over the same time period.

Figure 11 shows that young drivers appear to be less safe now than they were a decade ago. This is not the case for the rest of the population.

The key reasons why young drivers have lower levels of road safety are:

• Age:  the crash risk is higher for those aged under 18  and tends to decrease as age increases. The greatest risk period for young drivers is in the first six months of driving solo (ie the first six months of gaining a restricted licence).
• Risk taking/maturity:  young drivers underestimate risk, tend to drive in higher risk situations (for example at night and with peer passengers) and incorrectly perceive hazards. In part this reflects the fact that the parts of the brain that assess risk and control emotions and impulses are still developing into a person’s twenties. Gender also plays a role with young males being significantly over represented in crash statistics.
• Driving inexperience: driving experience reduces crash risk over time. However, the combination of driving inexperience and immaturity makes the crash risk higher for young novice drivers than for older novice drivers.
• Alcohol/drugs: 15–24 year olds are more likely to be affected by alcohol/drugs.
• Speed: young drivers are more than two and a half times more likely to have speed as a contributing factor in a fatal crash than drivers over the age of 25.
• Distractions: younger drivers have the highest rate of distraction related fatal and serious crashes.

What Safer Journeys will achieve

By 2020 our young drivers will enjoy a greater level of road safety. The Graduated Driving Licensing System will better protect them from serious crashes. Access to quality and relevant road safety education will be commonplace.

We will aim to reduce the road fatality rate of our young people from 21 per 100,000 population to a rate similar to that of young Australians of 13 per 100,000.

What actions can we take?

• Raise the driving age to 16
• Make the restricted licence test more difficult to encourage 120 hours of supervised driving practice. This initiative includes raising public awareness of young driver crash risk and reviewing and improving the road safety education available to young people
• Lower the youth drink-drive limit to zero
• Further evaluation of extending the learner licence period from six to twelve months
• Quickly adopt innovative practices and new technologies
• Investigate vehicle power restrictions for young drivers
• Further evaluation of compulsory third party vehicle insurance.

If we are to take a step towards young drivers being free of road deaths and serious injury, a fundamental change is needed in our approach to young peoples’ road safety. To date, effort has tended to focus on improving young driver behaviour. We need to broaden this through a Safe System approach. We will look across the system of users, vehicles, speeds and roading initiatives to make improvements.

We know from crash data that serious crashes involving young drivers are more likely to involve loss-of-control, high speeds, alcohol/drugs, distraction and occur at night. We also know that the underlying causes of their crashes are age, inexperience and risk taking (caused in part by physiological immaturity).

The Safer Journeys’ initiatives in the areas of alcohol/drugs, distraction, Safe Speeds, Safe Roads and Safe Vehicles, will all improve safety for young drivers. Alongside these measures, the following specific young driver initiatives could be introduced:

Raise the driving age to 16

The key road user change we can make to improve road safety for young drivers is to raise the age at which young people can start to learn to drive, and when they can start driving solo.

Currently we have one of the lowest driving ages in the OECD. Across the OECD, the age at which most countries allow someone to learn to drive is 17 years.

Research shows that the greatest risk period for young drivers is in the first six months of driving solo (ie the first six months of gaining a restricted licence). The younger a driver starts driving solo, particularly before the age of 18, the higher their crash risk,  with 15 year olds most at risk.
 
To help young people learn to drive and build experience with a greater level of safety, we will look to raise the minimum driving age to 16 years. This would delay the start of solo driving until young drivers are at least 16 and a half years old and more competent and mentally capable. This initiative will move New Zealand closer to the best-performing road safety countries. Action could be taken on this in the first 3 years of Safer Journeys.

This action is central to developing a Safe System. It is estimated that this initiative will save 4 lives and prevent 26 serious injuries and 160 minor injuries each year. This equates to an annual social cost saving of around $40 million.

Make the restricted licence test more difficult to encourage 120 hours of supervised driving practice

Action will also be taken to ensure young drivers develop the full range of competencies and experiences needed to be safe responsible drivers.

Experience from Sweden suggests that young drivers who undertake 120 hours of supervised driving practice in all conditions before driving solo could reduce their crash risk by up to 40 percent*. Currently learner drivers are estimated to do around 50 hours of supervised practice.

*Compared to a control group of drivers who undertook around 40 hours of supervised driving practice.

To encourage 120 hours of supervised practice, in the first three years of Safer Journeys, we will look to make the restricted licence test more difficult. The test will place more emphasis on skills such as hazard perception and risk management. To be able to pass the test, novice drivers will need to have done substantially more supervised practice than 50 hours.

To increase the effectiveness of this initiative we will:

• Raise public awareness of young driver crash risk. Parents and caregivers often do not appreciate the high crash risk young drivers face and what they can do to reduce it. A public awareness campaign will look to address this. It will explain why supervised practice is important, and why we have licence conditions for novice drivers (eg restrictions on night-time driving and carrying peer passengers).
• Review and improve the road safety education available to young people. Many young New Zealanders do not have access to quality road safety education either in school or through professional driver training. We will review how access to quality and relevant education can be improved.

Lower the youth drink-drive limit to zero

We will also look to lower the legal drink-drive limit for youth (drivers under 20 years) to zero. Currently, New Zealand has a BAC limit of 30 mg per 100 ml (BAC 0.03) for drivers under 20 years of age.

Figure 8, in the previous alcohol/drugs section, shows the crash risk for young drivers rises significantly even at very low BAC levels. At the existing BAC of 0.03, the risk of a 15 to 19 year old driver being involved in a fatal crash is 15 times greater compared with a sober driver aged over 30.

Lowering the youth limit is estimated to save two lives and prevent 43 injuries each year. This would be an annual social cost saving of $16.5 million.

Investigate vehicle power restrictions for young drivers

Access to high-powered or modified cars is a factor in a number of crashes involving young drivers. Some Australian states have introduced vehicle power restrictions for young drivers as a condition of their learner or restricted licence. New South Wales and Queensland ban the use of V8s, turbo and supercharged vehicles, modified vehicles and certain high performance six cylinder vehicles. There are exemptions for those that need to drive a high-powered car for work.

We will investigate whether vehicle power restrictions for young drivers should be introduced in New Zealand. This investigation will include evaluating the effectiveness of the Australian restrictions in terms of reducing young driver crash risk.

Further evaluation of extending the learner licence period from six to twelve months

Extending the learner licence period allows for greater levels of quality supervised practice. It also delays the start of unsupervised driving by a further six months. As mentioned, the younger a driver starts driving solo, the higher their crash risk.

This initiative is estimated to save 3 lives, and prevent 18 serious injuries and 106 minor injuries per year. This equates to an annual social cost saving of $28 million.

Quickly adopt innovative practices and new technologies

The above actions are those that international experience suggests will have the greatest impact in improving the safety of young drivers. Once they are introduced we will be monitoring international developments to see what else is possible. We want to ensure that our young drivers gain the benefit of innovative practices and that new technologies are adopted quickly.

For instance, vehicle technologies have the potential to significantly increase the safety of young drivers. Apart from existing safety technologies like ESC and side curtain airbags, other features like intelligent speed assistance (ISA) will also contribute. For example, parents could opt for an ISA system that restricts travel speed to the speed limits in the car that will be driven by their young driver.

Further evaluation of compulsory third party vehicle insurance

Compulsory third party vehicle insurance received a lot of support in the consultation phase. However, recent research suggests the rate of vehicle insurance among New Zealanders is already very high and so it would be unlikely to significantly improve road safety. Further evaluation will be undertaken to determine the effectiveness of this initiative.

PROBABLE FIRST STEPS

The first steps that we intend to take will be to:

• raise the driving age to 16
• make the restricted licence test more difficult to encourage 120 hours of supervised driving practice
• raise public awareness of young driver crash risk
• review and improve the road safety education available to young people.
• lower the youth drink-drive limit to zero
• investigate vehicle power restrictions for young drivers.

 

INCREASING THE SAFETY OF MOTORCYCLING

What is the problem?

• The risk of a motorcyclist being killed or seriously injured in a crash is about 18 times higher than for a car driver.
• In 2008, 52 motorcyclists were killed, 466 were seriously injured and 1,030 suffered minor injures. This represents 14 percent of all road deaths and 18 percent of all serious injuries. The total social cost of crashes involving motorcyclists in 2008 was $587 million.
• Motorcyclist deaths and injuries dropped significantly during the 1990s. However, from 2000 there has been no further decrease and since 2005 deaths and injuries have risen (see Figure 12). The number of motorcycle casualties in 2008 was more than double the total in 2000.

This increase in casualties coincides with a quadrupling in motorcycle registrations since 2000. The increase in motorcycling probably reflects higher fuel prices, congestion, environmental awareness and the rise in popularity of motorcycling among older age groups.

The last reason partly explains why motorcyclists aged 40 years and over have experienced the largest increase in deaths and injuries. This has also pushed up the average age of motorcycle casualties over the last 28 years from 22 in 1980 to 35 in 2008.

With more motorcyclists on the road it is expected that motorcycle casualties will continue to rise unless we take steps to tackle the problem. If we do not we could expect to see over 650 fatalities for the 10 years to 2020, with about 20,000 injuries for the same period.

ACC estimate that its motorcycle injury claims costs could increase from $70 million (estimated for 2010), to about $114 million in 2020 if no new road safety measures are implemented.

What Safer Journeys will achieve

By 2020 increasing the safety of motorcyclists will be a core part of road safety. We will know we have been successful in doing this when the numbers of motorcyclists losing their lives, or suffering serious injuries, are significantly reduced.

What actions can we take?

• Improve rider training and licensing, including licensing moped riders.
• Improve the safety of returning riders.

Safer Journeys will set out complementary action across the four areas of the Safe System.

In the Safe Roads and Roadsides section of this strategy, a targeted programme of roading treatments on popular motorcycle routes, the focus on high-risk urban intersections, and the change in the give way rule for turning traffic will all improve safety for motorcyclists.

The speed initiatives will contribute to reducing loss-of-control motorcycle crashes, and will improve survival rates in serious motorcycle crashes. There are also specific initiatives to improve the safety of motorcycles in the Safe Vehicles section.

Alongside these initiatives, action will be taken to raise the skill and competence of motorcyclists.

Improved rider training and licensing

Riding a motorcycle requires a different set of skills and a higher level of vehicle control than driving a car. However, the Graduated Driver Licensing System makes little acknowledgement of this, nor does it encourage training to give motorcyclists the skills they need to ride safely.

To address this we could, in the first three years of Safer Journeys, strengthen the basic handling skills test as well as the restricted and full motorcycle licence practical tests. In addition moped riders, who currently only require a car licence, would be required to pass the upgraded basic handling skills test and a moped-specific theory test.

By increasing rider competence before permitting people to ride on public roads, the risk for novice riders will be lowered. This is important as the first twelve months of riding is the key crash risk period for motorcyclists.

The strengthened tests will also encourage novice riders to access training. This would mean that key skills, such as hazard perception, could be taught when riders are most at risk. To support this, approved training courses will be made available to those on learner motorcycle licences (currently they are only available in the restricted phase).

Improve the safety of returning riders

These actions will increase the skill and competence of new riders. However, they will not address the issue of people who hold valid licences returning to motorcycling after a long break with deteriorated riding skills. The first Safer Journeys action plan will consider how the safety of returning riders can be improved.

PROBABLE FIRST STEP

The first step that we intend to take will be to:

• improve rider training and licensing, including licensing moped riders.

SAFE WALKING AND CYCLING

What is the problem?

Pedestrians

• In each year over the period 2004-2008, an average of 678 pedestrians were hospitalised and 38 were killed.
• The number of pedestrian injuries has not changed in the last 15 years, despite the decline in walking by children, who are most at risk.

Cyclists

• In each year over the period 2004-2008, an average of nearly 300 cyclists were hospitalised and 10 were killed from crashes involving a vehicle.
• Cyclists were found to have primary responsibility in only 25 percent of all cyclist-vehicle crashes in which they were injured or killed.

Pedestrians currently account for 10 percent of all road deaths and cyclists 3 percent. However, in urban areas, pedestrians and cyclists account for 30 percent of all road deaths. The majority of crashes involving a cyclist or pedestrian and a motor vehicle occur on urban roads, particularly busy urban arterials where vehicle speeds tend to be higher.

The evidence shows that the most obvious way to improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists, especially in urban areas, is to reduce vehicle speeds. The faster a driver is going the harder it is for them to avoid hitting someone in their path. The speed at which a cyclist or pedestrian is hit determines how seriously they will be injured.

What Safer Journeys will achieve

By 2020 we will have a safe road environment that encourages more people to walk and cycle, where vehicles travel at safe speeds and there is a culture of sharing the road. We will aim to achieve a significant reduction in the number of pedestrians and cyclists killed and seriously injured while at the same time encouraging people to use these modes through safer roading infrastructure. 

What actions can we take?

• Change the give way rules for turning traffic (see Roads section)
• Strengthen techniques to integrate safety into land-use planning (see Roads section)
• Lower speeds in urban areas (see Speed section)
• Increase coverage of temporary lower speed limits around schools
• Increase cycle skills training in schools and increase the effectiveness of road user education to make it safer to walk and cycle

Our strategy to improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists is based on:

• providing safe and convenient routes for pedestrians and cyclists, especially to and from work and school
• reducing vehicle speeds on roads used frequently by pedestrians and cyclists
• encouraging drivers and cyclists to share the road safely.

The initiatives in the Safe Roads and Roadsides sections on mixed-use arterials, intersections, and changes to the give way rule would support safer walking and cycling routes. The actions in the Safe Speed section that aim to moderate speeds in urban areas would assist as well. Together, these initiatives would produce the greatest safety benefits for pedestrians and cyclists.

Road safety education in schools will remain an integral part of improving walking and cycling safety. Over the course of the strategy we will look to improve on existing initiatives such as cyclist skills training, the BikeWise programme and school travel plans that equip young road users with the skills to become safe and competent on the road.

If more children walk and cycle and appreciate the importance of the road rules then they are likely to have a better understanding of how they should behave around pedestrians and cyclists when they start driving. We will also continue to promote a Share the Road* culture that encourages all road users to respect each others’ safety.

*The NZ Transport Agency has published guidelines for Share the Road campaigns

We intend to continue to support the roll-out of strongly enforced variable speed limits around schools. Variable speed signs help road users to appreciate the safety needs of school children when they are most likely to be using the road.

Investment in safe walking and cycling infrastructure will continue through the National Land Transport Programme (NLTP). A new walking and cycling initiative in the NLTP that has relevance to Safer Journeys is the model community project.  A model community (which could be a typical town suburb) is a concentrated package of small infrastructure improvements, speed limit changes, road safety education, improved access to public transport, walking and cycling initiatives and targeted enforcement . Model communities seem ideal for trialling the latest safety techniques.

Increase cycle skills training in schools and increase the effectiveness of road user education to make it safer to walk and cycle

Cyclist training has been successful overseas, mainly because it helps children to become proficient and safe on a bicycle at an early age. When combined with measures like low speed zones and safer routes to school, it helps parents to feel confident about their children cycling to school.

Christchurch has had a successful and cost-effective programme (Cycle Safe) for several years. This equips children with safe cycling skills and also contributed to an increase in cycling. Children who have gone through the programme are also less likely to have a crash. The benefits of this programme outweigh the costs by almost eight to one. We will consider how this programme could be expanded.

We could also encourage more considerate and safe behaviour from all road users. For drivers the key messages are to take extra care around pedestrians and cyclists. This includes giving them sufficient space on the road, driving at speeds that are safe for all users on the road and not parking in dangerous places.

For pedestrians and cyclists the key messages are to comply with the road rules (eg stopping at red lights and crossing on the ‘green man’) and to take safety precautions (eg being visible at night). As well as improving safety this would go some way to gaining more respect from drivers. We intend to continue to improve the effectiveness of these road safety education campaigns over the course of the strategy.

Increase coverage of temporary lower speed limits around schools

If backed with strong enforcement, this initiative would significantly improve safety around schools. Variable speed signs help to educate road users to consider the needs of school children and their vulnerability. A variable speed limit of 40 km/h is introduced before and after school, and at other busy times.

A number of these temporary lower speed limits have already been established and are supported by stronger enforcement. The Police start enforcing the speed limit once a driver goes more than 5 km/h over the limit, rather than the 10 km/h discretion which they usually apply. Initial results suggest this method has been effective in bringing down mean speeds and reducing the incidence of speeding around schools.

This initiative will be closely linked to existing locally-driven programmes such as school travel plans and neighbourhood accessibility plans. We will review the effectiveness of these and consider how to further roll them out where they can be most successful.

PROBABLE FIRST STEP

The first step that we intend to take will be to:

• change the give way rule for turning traffic.

REDUCING THE IMPACT OF DISTRACTION AND FATIGUE

What is the problem?

• Over the period 2004–2008 distraction, or inattention, contributed to at least 10 percent of fatal crashes and 9 percent of serious injury crashes. In 2008, these crashes resulted in 245 serious injuries and 42 deaths. In 2008, it was estimated that the social cost of crashes involving distraction was $413 million.
• Over the period 2004–2008 fatigue contributed to 7 percent of serious injury crashes and 12 percent of fatal crashes. In 2008 alone, fatigue-related crashes resulted in 192 serious injuries and 52 deaths. It is estimated that the total social cost of crashes involving fatigue in 2008 was $316 million.
• Distraction and fatigue contribute to more road deaths and injuries than official statistics show. International research suggests that fatigue could be a factor in up to 25 percent of fatal crashes and distraction a factor in 20 percent of fatal crashes.
• As distraction and fatigue are under-reported, neither area has received the focus that their contribution to crashes actually warrants.

Distraction

Driving safely requires a driver’s full attention. Drivers need to maintain control of their vehicle and stay aware of the surroundings while looking out for and reacting to potential hazards. Distraction (or diverted attention) occurs when a driver’s attention is diverted away from activities that are critical for safe driving, towards competing events, objects, or people, inside or outside of the vehicle. Common distractions include talking with passengers, adjusting vehicle controls, watching or looking at other traffic, cell phones, and eating and drinking. Being upset or angry can also mean drivers are not paying full attention to the driving task.

Other terms are also used to describe distraction. To avoid any doubt in Safer Journeys, distraction is synonymous with diverted attention, which is part of the broader concept of inattention. Other key causes of distraction or inattention – alcohol, drugs and fatigue – are all addressed in this strategy.

Distraction is a serious road safety issue. It is often the initial event in a chain of events resulting in serious road trauma. Despite its seriousness, we do not know the full extent of distraction’s contribution to crashes. Crash statistics tend to under-report distraction. This is because drivers at a crash scene are often not willing to admit they were distracted and so it is difficult for a police officer to identify whether distraction has contributed to a crash.

Despite its seriousness, public understanding of distraction is low. Focus group research  shows that many drivers do not see distraction as a road safety issue. People tend to view distraction as a normal part of driving. This is despite people also describing ‘near-misses’ and other situations where their driving had been affected by distraction.

There is concern that the number of distraction crashes may increase over 2010–2020. This is because the number and types of technologies that can distract drivers is increasing rapidly (eg MP3 players, navigation systems and entertainment systems).

The challenge in dealing with distraction is to put in place initiatives that will be both effective and offer value for money. Distractions are part of everyday life. Unlike alcohol or drug impaired driving, it is unrealistic to require all drivers not to be distracted at all times while driving.

Fatigue

People driving while they are tired, drowsy or sleepy is referred to as driver fatigue. Fatigue can affect a driver’s reaction time, their ability to concentrate and their understanding of the road and traffic around them. The three main causes of fatigue are:

• insufficient sleep
• driving during times when we usually sleep
• long periods of work or activity without a break.

Crashes resulting from driver fatigue are among the most severe on the road. This is because a fatigued driver is less able to brake or avoid the impending crash. Severity and risk is increased further when fatigue is combined with speed, alcohol and drugs.

Until recently, efforts to reduce driver fatigue have focused on commercial drivers. This is because it is easier to influence fatigue in the workplace than in private vehicle use. To reduce fatigue-related crashes we need to extend the focus to all drivers.

What Safer Journeys will achieve

By 2020 New Zealanders’ management of driver distraction and fatigue will be a habitual part of what it is to be a safe and competent driver.

Before 2020 we will have established the extent to which distraction and fatigue contribute to road crashes. This will enable us to set targets for improvement and monitor our progress. 

What actions can we take?

• Educate users about distraction and how it can be managed
• Educate users about fatigue
• Improve the crash information on distraction and fatigue.

With a Safe System approach, roads, speeds, vehicles and road users will all be targeted to reduce the incidence and severity of distraction and fatigue-related crashes.

Over the period 2010–2020, we will continue to invest in road treatments that prevent or minimise loss-of-control, run-off road and head-on crashes (for example rumble strips, guard rails, median barriers and sealed road shoulders).

The Safer Journeys’ speed initiatives will contribute to reducing the severity of crashes. As vehicle technologies that help prevent fatigue and distraction crashes (eg lane departure warning systems) become available, and their real-world effectiveness proven, they will be promoted to consumers.

However, in the first years of Safer Journeys, action will focus on education as a way of avoiding fatigued and distracted driving. Effort will be directed at giving drivers the information they need to take responsibility to avoid fatigue and distraction/inattention.

Educate users about distraction and how it can be managed

Many people are unaware of the risk of distraction, and the ways they can reduce this risk (eg planning the travel route, choosing music while stopped and adjusting controls prior to the journey). We intend to use targeted public awareness campaigns to inform users about distraction.

The aim is that actions to reduce distraction become as habitual as putting your seatbelt on.

Information will be incorporated into road safety education, particularly the education provided to young people. Identifying and managing distraction could then be included in driver testing.

Any workplace injury prevention activity undertaken by the government will also include a focus on managing driver distraction.

Educate users about fatigue

There is widespread understanding that fatigue is a road safety issue, but people often do not recognise the signs of fatigue and realise when to stop driving. As soon as practicable, we intend to make a greater range of information available on recognising the signs of fatigue and what to do about it (eg sharing the driving, and making use of roadside stopping places for power napping).

Like the distraction campaign, the aim of the fatigue campaign would be to make the management of fatigue part of what it is to be a safe and competent driver.

This information will be targeted to high risk groups such as commercial drivers, shift workers, young people, and people driving on holidays.
Improve the crash information on distraction and fatigue

Distraction and fatigue contribute to more road deaths and injuries than official statistics show. This is because our crash statistics are based on Police reported crash data. At a crash scene it can be difficult to determine, without an admission from a driver, whether fatigue or distraction are contributing factors.

To improve crash information, research will be conducted over 2010–2020 to ascertain the prevalence of fatigue and distraction. This research, along with evaluation of the information and education campaigns, will be used to improve our response to distraction and fatigue. 

REDUCING THE IMPACT OF HIGH RISK DRIVERS

What is the problem?

• High risk drivers are dangerous and reckless drivers, disqualified drivers, unlicensed drivers, drivers involved in illegal street racing, repeat drink/drug driver offenders, high BAC level offenders, repeat  speed offenders and high level speed offenders.
• It is not possible to know exactly how many high risk drivers there are. We do know that around 67,000 drivers are disqualified each year and 27 percent of drink-drive offenders are repeat offenders.
• Although probably low in number, high risk drivers are over-represented in crash statistics and their crashes tend to be more serious than those involving other drivers. They are also more likely to be at fault.
• Over the period 2004–2008 high risk drivers were deemed to be at fault in at least 11 percent of serious injury crashes and at least 15 percent of fatal crashes. For 2008 such crashes resulted in 1,030 minor injuries, 300 serious injuries, and 51 fatalities.
• The total social cost of crashes where high risk drivers were at fault was at least $410 million for 2008.

High risk drivers are low in number, and most crashes on New Zealand roads do not involve drivers from this group. However, high risk drivers contribute disproportionately to road trauma and unnecessarily expose New Zealanders to a higher level of crash risk.

What Safer Journeys will achieve

By 2020 we will have reduced the heightened crash risk that high risk drivers expose New Zealanders to. We will know we have been successful in doing this when the number of crashes where high risk drivers are at fault is significantly reduced.

What actions can we take?

• Implement the initiatives in the alcohol/drug impaired driving, young drivers and safer speeds
• Focus Police resources on high risk drivers
• Evaluate the effectiveness of the illegal street racing legislation
• Offer driver licence assistance courses for unlicensed drivers
• Employ new technologies to restrict high risk drivers.

Safer speeds, alcohol / drugs and young drivers

There are initiatives in the areas of alcohol/drugs and safer speeds that specifically target repeat offenders and high level offending. These are:

• compulsory alcohol interlocks
• a zero drink-drive limit
• increasing the number of road safety cameras and allowing demerit points on camera detected offences
• rebalancing speed penalties, that is higher demerit points and lower fines.

These initiatives, coupled with the illegal street racing legislation discussed below, are intended to be the core of our response to high risk drivers. These specific initiatives would work with the general initiatives, eg a lower adult drink-drive limit, a higher driving age and strengthened driver licensing, to lower the crash risk from high risk drivers.

Focus Police resources on repeat offenders and high end offenders

To make sure we get the most value from our Police resources, the first Safer Journeys action plan will consider how those resources can be better used in reducing the impact of high risk drivers. For example, this could include Police focussing on repeat  alcohol offenders and using authorised officers, rather than sworn personnel, to operate compulsory random roadside tests.

Evaluate the effectiveness of the illegal street racing legislation

In October 2009 the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Act 2009 was passed. This Act contains a number of measures aimed at tackling illegal street racing and the anti-social behaviour that is associated with it. This legislation came into force on 1 December 2009.

This legislation gave Police, the courts and local authorities greater powers and sends a strong message to illegal street racers that dangerous, disruptive and anti-social use of vehicles will not be tolerated.

We will evaluate the effectiveness of the illegal street racing legislation by 2012. Results of the evaluation will be used to improve our efforts to deal with illegal street racing and other high risk drivers.

Driver licence assistance courses for unlicensed drivers

Unlicensed drivers present a significant problem for road safety. Unlicensed drivers are less influenced by the threat of loss of licence and are more likely to engage in other high risk behaviours, such as drink driving and speeding .

Unlicensed drivers work against the idea of a Safe System which requires all drivers to be licensed and compliant with the road rules.

There are many reasons why a driver might drive unlicensed. For some drivers there will be issues of accessibility, cost, or literacy. Driver licence assistance courses have been run in various centres around New Zealand for several years. Anecdotal evidence suggests that these courses are effective for people wanting to obtain a licence and drive legally.

We will review how we can make better use of these courses in reducing the number of unlicensed drivers.

Employ new technologies to restrict high risk drivers

Once the above actions are introduced we will be monitoring international developments to see what else is possible to reduce the crash risk from high risk drivers.
 
Apart from alcohol interlocks there are other vehicle technologies that could be used to protect New Zealanders from high risk drivers. For instance, in the future we could rely on intelligent speed assistance to limit the travel speed of repeat offenders. We could rely on vehicle technology to limit the hours of the day that an offender’s vehicle could be driven.

PROBABLE FIRST STEPS

The first steps that we intend to take will be to:

• address drink-drive repeat offending and high level alcohol offending through compulsory alcohol interlocks and a zero drink drive limit
• review the traffic offences and penalties for causing death or injury.

AREAS OF CONTINUED AND EMERGING FOCUS

Restraints and older New Zealanders are two areas where the road safety effort will continue over 2010–2020.

Restraints

Effort will continue in regions where rates of restraint use are lower than the national average. We will also focus on restraint use by commercial drivers across all regions. Alongside this, the Safe Vehicles section contains a new initiative to bring our child restraint requirements in line with international best practice.

Older New Zealanders

With an ageing population, the road safety of older New Zealanders (that is people over the age of 75 years) is an increasingly important issue. By improving road safety generally, the actions in Safer Journeys will increase the safety of older New Zealanders, and we will be closely monitoring these.

Our second or third action plan will set out any changes that may be needed to improve safety for older New Zealanders. We know that the road fatality rate of older New Zealanders is 15 per 100,000. This compares with 11 per 100,000 for older Australians. If New Zealand had the same road fatality rate for over 75 year olds as Australia, then in 2009 11 lives would have been saved.

We will investigate what we can learn from Australia’s approaches to raising the safety of older road users. We could also focus on the safety of mobility devices.