Safe road use - FAQs

REDUCING THE IMPACT OF ALCOHOL/DRUG IMPAIRED DRIVING

How big an issue is drugged driving?

In comparison to drink driving, less is known about the extent of drugged driving but evidence suggests that it is a significant road safety issue.

Preliminary results of a study of the blood of deceased drivers* show that:

• 31 percent of drivers had used cannabis with or without alcohol or other drugs;
• 19 percent of drivers used alcohol and another drug(s); and
• 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 will be 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.

There has already been action towards addressing this issue. The Land Transport Amendment Act 2009 (the Act) gives Police greater powers to deal with the problem of people driving under the influence of drugs. Provisions for combating drugged driving came into force on 1 November 2009.

Why don’t we increase penalties and introduce car confiscation and crushing for repeat drink drivers?

Crash data shows that the majority of fatal and injury crashes that involved alcohol impaired drivers were caused by a drink driver who had no prior drink driving conviction in the five years before the crash. This suggests that more people drink-drive than the official statistics suggest, and so increasing penalties and car confiscation are unlikely to affect these people.

We will be reviewing the traffic offences and penalties for causing death and serious injury. Safer Journeys will also look to introduce alcohol interlocks as a measure for addressing the issue of repeat drink drivers. A number of jurisdictions in the United States, Canada, Australia and Europe have interlock programmes for drink drive offenders. The programmes have been effective in preventing repeat drink driving, particularly when coupled with education and/or addiction treatment.

Why don’t you restrict access to alcohol and drugs and provide more treatment for alcoholics and drug addicts?

The actions in Safer Journeys are those we can take in transport to reduce drink and drugged driving. However, we are aware that issues such as access to alcohol have a wider impact in society. The issue of what other actions can be taken to address the wider issue of alcohol harm is being looked at by the Law Commission. The Commission is due to report to the Government in the first half of this year.

Action – conduct research on the level of risk posed by drivers with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) between 0.05 – 0.08, or reduce the legal blood alcohol limit to 50mg per 100ml (BAC 0.05).

This action has been progressed through the Land Transport (Road Safety and other Matters) Amendment Act 2011.

Find out more about the Act here.

Action – Address repeat offenders and high level offending through compulsory alcohol interlocks

This action has been progressed through the Land Transport (Road Safety and other Matters) Amendment Act 2011.

Find out more about the Act here.

Action – Review the traffic offences and penalties for repeat offenders causing death and serious injury

This action has been progressed through the Land Transport (Road Safety and other Matters) Amendment Act 2011.

Find out more about the Act here.

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

This action has been progressed through the Land Transport (Road Safety and other Matters) Amendment Act 2011.

Find out more about the Act here.

Action - Support the future introduction of random roadside drug testing with research

Will the impairment test recently introduced (through the Land Transport Amendment Act) be enough?

Random roadside testing would deter more people from drug driving than an impairment test. This is because the likelihood of being caught drug driving is greater. With random testing a Police officer can require a driver to undergo a test whether or not there is reason to suspect impairment. However, technology doesn’t currently allow for random roadside testing of many drugs.

When could we begin random roadside testing for drugs?

Testing devices for illegal drugs are still in development and we would only consider this initiative as technology allows. The Ministry of Transport monitors advances in drug testing technology.

INCREASING THE SAFETY OF YOUNG DRIVERS

Action – Raise the driving age to 16

This action has been progressed through the Land Transport (Road Safety and other Matters) Amendment Act 2011.

Find out more about the Act here.

Action – 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.

This action has been progressed through the Land Transport (Road Safety and other Matters) Amendment Act 2011.

Find out more about the Act here.

Action – lower the youth drink-drive limit to zero

This action has been progressed through the Land Transport (Road Safety and other Matters) Amendment Act 2011.

Find out more about the Act here.

Action – Quickly adopt innovative practices and new technologies

What type of practices and technologies could we be adopt?

We will be monitoring international developments to see what else is possible to ensure that our young drivers gain the benefit of innovative practices and that new technologies are adopted quickly. For example, parents could opt for an ISA system that restricts the travel speed in the car that will be driven by their young driver.

Action – Investigate vehicle power restrictions for young drivers.

Could power restrictions prevent young drivers from driving their parents’ car or a powerful car they may need for work?

If vehicle power restrictions were introduced, exemptions could be given in certain circumstances as is the case in some Australian states. However, these are issues that will need to be worked through. Research is currently underway to evaluate the effectiveness of the Australian power restrictions. The Ministry of Transport will be examining the results of this research as part of investigating whether vehicle power restrictions for young drivers should be introduced in New Zealand.

Action - Further evaluation of compulsory third party vehicle insurance

Does this mean you have ruled out compulsory third party insurance?

We have not ruled this out. However, recently released research has shown that as New Zealand’s rate of insurance is already very high there is a smaller scope for increasing levels of vehicle insurance. Further research may be required to find what safety improvements may be offered by compulsory third party insurance.

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

Does this mean you have ruled this out?

We haven’t ruled this out, but will be undertaking further evaluation to find out what benefits it would have for New Zealand and how these compare with the costs of imposing a further delay in unsupervised driving. Raising the driving age is the key action for improving the safety of younger drivers at this time and we will be monitoring the effectiveness of this measure as part of the evaluation of the Safer Journeys first actions.

SAFE WALKING AND CYCLING

Why are there only a few minor initiatives for walking and cycling?

The initiatives that will have the greatest benefit for walking and cycling are contained in the sections on speed and roads/roadsides. This is consistent with the Safe System approach.

Why is walking and cycling considered to be a priority area when most people drive?

More than one-third of New Zealanders own a bike (1.25 million) and more than 10 percent of them (140,000) use their bike every day. About 38,000 commuters ride to work. On any given day 25 percent of people report walking on New Zealand roads and / or footpaths. In addition, for some people driving is not an option (eg children).

It is important to note that many people who drive also use other forms of transport, for example for short trips or commuting. Many people walk for at least part of their trip. Likewise, many people who predominately walk or cycle may also use a car. We want to make it safer for people to travel irrespective of their chosen mode of transport.

Is cycling dangerous?

It is not inherently dangerous to ride a bike. The risk comes when people who cycle have to share the road with motorists. We want it to be safer for those who choose to cycle (like motorcycling). Unlike motorcycling, most crashes involving a cycle are not the cyclist’s fault (In 2007, 70 percent of crashes involving cyclists and motor vehicles were not the cyclist’s fault).

There is also the safety in numbers effect to consider for cycling. The more people there are cycling on a network, the safer each of them is, as drivers become more accustomed to seeing and interacting with them on the road. We would like to see more people cycling for transport and we would like it to be safer.

Walking is already relatively safe so why is it a priority?

The crash statistics are high in urban areas and we have made little progress, especially with serious injuries. On average over 40 pedestrians are killed each year. We also need to consider groups such as children and the elderly, who tend to be over-represented in the crash statistics.

Action – Change the give way rules for turning traffic

How will this benefit cyclists and pedestrians?

The number of intersection crashes involving pedestrians has increased by 88 percent since 2000, and many of them were hit by a turning vehicle. The changes to the give way rules for turning traffic would mean there are fewer factors for drivers to consider when turning, so it would be easier for them to check for cyclists alongside their vehicle and pedestrians crossing the road they are entering. We will review the effectiveness of these changes, and if necessary consider further changes at a later date to give pedestrians more priority.

Action – lower speeds in urban areas

How will this benefit cyclists and pedestrians?

The faster a driver is going the longer it takes for them to stop (and avoid hitting someone in their path). The speed at which a cyclist or pedestrian is hit determines how seriously they will be injured.

It is becoming increasingly recognised internationally and in many New Zealand towns and cities that the 50km/h urban speed limit is too high for areas where there is high walking and cycling activity or where there are a lot of vulnerable road users, such as children. A pedestrian hit by a vehicle at 48km/h has a 55 percent chance of surviving the impact. If they were struck at 32km/h their chances of survival are 95 percent. Small reductions in impact speed mean a much lower chance of pedestrians and cyclists being killed or seriously injured.

Action – Increase coverage of temporary lower speed limits around schools

Why focus on school safety when most of child trauma is away from the school gates?

The initiatives under speed (eg 30-40 km/h zones) and roads and roadsides (eg give way rules) will assist child safety. Focusing on child safety around schools helps to build awareness of child safety in general.

Is it realistic to expect drivers to slow down to 20km/h passing a school bus?

In some cases yes, but not all. Various other options are under consideration (eg better warning signage such as flashing lights on the buses and safer stopping points).

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

Who will carry out this training and education?

Cycle skills training is currently carried out mainly by the Police (plus the Christchurch City Council sponsored Cycle Safe programme) and a few private training providers. The NZTA has just produced guidelines for cycle skills training with the intention that private training providers can become part of a national training programme with guaranteed standards. The NZTA has also recently developed an Official New Zealand Code for Cyclists.

Does this mean there will be a national share the road campaign?

Probably not. Share the road campaigns are usually conducted locally where they can be better targeted.

REDUCE THE IMPACT OF DISTRACTION AND FATIGUE

Avoiding fatigue and distraction is the responsibility of a driver, how can the government prevent this?

Fatigue and distraction are major road safety issues and their impact is thought to be larger than official estimates show. Raising awareness among drivers is a key part of proposals for addressing fatigue and distraction.

Isn’t inattention the main cause of injury crashes? Why isn’t this issue a higher priority?

Road safety experts, here and overseas, typically use the term “inattention” to cover the broad range of situations where a driver fails to pay attend to the demands of driving for some reason. These situations include distraction, fatigue, drugs and alcohol. All these factors are priorities in Safer Journeys.

Action – Educate users about distraction and how it can be managed

Who will carry out this education?

The scheduling of initiatives and decisions on which agency will lead the implementation of this initiative have not yet been determined. These issues will be confirmed in the development of Safer Journeys action plans. 

Action – Educate users about fatigue

Don’t we already have advertisements about fatigue?

Yes but we want to build on this and raise public awareness about what individuals can do to avoid driving while fatigued.

Who will carry out this education?

The scheduling of initiatives and decisions on which agency will lead the implementation of this initiative have not yet been determined. These issues will be confirmed in the development of Safer Journeys action plans. 

Action – Improve the crash information on distraction and fatigue

Why do we need better information on distraction and fatigue?

The government’s main tool in studying road crashes is the Crash Analysis System or CAS. CAS is based on Police reporting at crashes and is considered a strong system among those in use internationally. However, at a crash scene it can be difficult to determine, without an admission from a driver, whether fatigue or distraction are contributing factors. Better information can help in our efforts to address these problems. We will look at how we can improve the reporting of distraction and fatigue related crashes.

REDUCING THE IMPACT OF HIGH RISK DRIVERS

Action – Focus police resources on high risk drivers

Will this mean that police resources will have to be taken away from other issues?

The police already target high risk drivers. However, this will mean an increased focus and so police will need to re-prioritise their resources.

Action – Evaluate the effectiveness of the illegal street racing legislation

Why do you need to evaluate this legislation?

It is important to review the illegal street racing legislation to determine if it is working as intended and if any amendments are necessary.

Action – Driver licence assistance courses for unlicensed drivers

Who will pay for these courses?

During the development of Safer Journeys action plans, decisions on whether access to courses would be expanded will be made and consideration will be given to how they will be funded. Action plans will set out the detail around the implementation of this action.

Action – Employ new technologies to restrict high risk drivers

What type of technologies are there for restricting high risk drivers?

Two key technologies that could be used are alcohol interlocks and intelligent speed assistance.

AREAS OF CONTINUED AND EMERGING FOCUS

Does “areas of continued focus” equate to business as usual?

No. To make significant improvements for road safety we will need to have change and innovation in these areas over the period 2010–2020. However in comparison with the priorities deemed “high” or “medium”, “area of continued focus” means that relatively less change in policy focus or effort is required.

Older New Zealanders

Are older road users already an issue? If so, should they be a greater priority?

Older people have a lower risk of being in a crash than other road users. Compared to other drivers, older drivers tend to drive slower, less frequently and in less risky situations. However, they are more vulnerable in a crash and injure more easily. Older pedestrians are also more vulnerable to injury if they are struck by a vehicle or fall on a poorly maintained footpath. As New Zealand faces an aging population, it is important that we consider the best ways of improving the safety of older road users over the longer term.

Will we bring back testing for older drivers?

There is no intention of increasing testing for older drivers. Since the removal of the mandatory on-road driving test in December 2006, the crash rate per 10,000 licence holders for drivers aged 80 or over has remained similar to that of previous years. The 2006 changes to the older driver licensing system has reduced cost to older drivers and increased access and mobility have been a positive benefit with no reduction in safety outcomes. However, we have identified the safety of older road users as an emerging issue because New Zealand faces an aging population. We will be considering the best ways of improving the safety of older drivers over the longer term.