110km/h speed limit gains support

Waikato’s regional transport committee is supporting moves to lift the open road speed to 110km/h, where appropriate.

The multi-agency committee this week signed off a submission on the NZ Transport Agency’s proposed speed limit setting rule which suggests the higher speed be available on approved roads.

The ability to set a 110km/h speed limit needed to be subject to the road meeting the very high standards proposed by the agency, such as it being a four-lane highway with median barriers, the submission says.

The submission notes the completed Waikato Expressway will meet the criteria for a 110km/h speed limit.  

“This move seems a sensible measure providing it is controlled properly,” says committee chair Hugh Vercoe of Waikato Regional Council.

The submission says, however, that it’s assumed trucks will continue to travel at the maximum legal speed of no more than 90km/h.

“It will be very important that strong enforcement is in place to ensure cars do not travel more than 110km/h and trucks no more than 90km/h,” the submission says.

To ensure this enforcement is effective, the committee supports the rollout of new technologies to enforce speed limits on these higher speed roads. This could include greater placement of new technology speed cameras.

The committee also noted extra concerns about the safety of cyclists using roads where the speed limit is lifted to 110km/h.

It said cyclists should be separated from general traffic flow and be catered for by cycle lanes on or beside such roads.



Posted on 11-07-2017 13:01 | By maildrop

I’ve already explained it. Fig 5 shows a bar graph for ALL truck crashes. The figure isn’t "quoted" in text. I’ve read the bar graph and it shows truck drivers at fault for 57% of crashes involving trucks. MoT break this down into 3 categories - crashes resulting in fatality, serious and minor injury. Truck drivers were at fault in those CATEGORIES 34%, 47%. & 57% respectively. They do not break down or give a figure for the "missing" category, which is crashes that result in NO injury. But they do give the ALL crashes figure in the bar graph, Figure 5. So, in very simple terms it is like this: 1+2+3+?=10. The ? Being the category not given, NO injury. Which is why I know it is >57%. It’s very simple.


Posted on 10-07-2017 18:05 | By Kenworthlogger

Can you please show us all how you have come to the figure of way over 57% percent for at fault no injury crashes that even the experts at MOT do not have. Regardless of whatever maths based qualifications you claim to have it is obvious you have made up this figure. You still have not given me an explanation of how your MOT quotes are quite different from the official ones that you seem to have modified yourself


Posted on 09-07-2017 19:30 | By maildrop

Yes Ken, your maths is very wrong. According to MoT truck drivers are at fault in 57% of crashes that result in minor injury. They are at fault in 47% of crashes that result in serious injury. They are at fault in 34% of crashes that result in fatalities. We are already over 100% Ken! Then there is the no injury category, which isn’t reported but as I’ve told you, it is way over 57%. I know this because I have a Masters in a maths based discipline. Each CATEGORY however will add up to 100%. The fact is that for ALL crashes (that is the combined categories), truck drivers were responsible for 57%. You clearly didn’t do much math at school so I give up. 10-4 over and OUT.


Posted on 09-07-2017 10:09 | By Papamoaner

It seems a sweeping statement and unfair to brand NZ truck drivers as "more deadly and dangerous" than in other countries. The worst place I ever experienced for bad drivers, was China - quite terrifying actually, mostly to do with overtaking. It might have been fairer to say NZ drivers in general are not crash hot (excuse pun). But I don’t like being alongside NZ logging trucks either, not because of the drivers, but because of the load height compared to wheelbase.


Posted on 08-07-2017 18:48 | By maildrop

Not heard much from Murray since his 81% vs 27% malarkey from Michigan. Which doesn’t make any sense as that adds up to 108%?! Remind me not to put him in charge of ratepayers money. But in his haste to find something to back up Ken, which I dismissed as irrelevant nonsense, he has perhaps made a valid point. That being, that compared to their international counterparts, NZ truck drivers are more deadly and dangerous truck drivers. Which I knew already. Good work Murray.


Posted on 08-07-2017 16:26 | By Kenworthlogger

Trucks have changed over time and are much faster and have lots more horsepower than before but the basic priciples always stay the same. Everyone one misses a gear once in a while, even the old pro’s. They are lying if they tell you otherwise. Your mates D12 sounds like an awesome bit of gear. Years ago people could only dream of such wonderful stuff and now it is reality.


Posted on 08-07-2017 16:11 | By Kenworthlogger

I think ill stick to what is actually said in words Maildrop as i dont see any mention of statistical anomalies anywhere in the text so i can say that you have made that up if not where does it say that. If all crashes add up to 100% and the at fault minor injury catagory one is 57% and the fatal catagory is 34% that can only leave 9% or my maths is wrong. As i have said i have cut and pasted the entire MOT quotes and they are slightly different from what you are are saying. If you have not changed anything how do you explain the difference?


Posted on 08-07-2017 08:08 | By maildrop

Yes, the "missing category" is crashes that result in NO injury. MoT don’t report the figure for this. Figure 5 shows a bar graph for ALL crashes that trucks are involved in and the truck driver is at fault. It sits between 55-60%. I put a ruler on it to get 57%. It is a coincidence that it is the same figure as for the minor injury category. The ALL crashes bar graph will include the NO injury "missing" figure. Being good at maths and someone who has spent a lifetime analysing and creating reports such as these I can tell you that the missing figure for truck driver at fault in no injury crashes is therefore way above 57%. Don’t accuse people of changing things, or trying to deliberately deceive people. Read things fully. If you don’t understand them, don’t comment. 10-4 out.

Another thing Ken

Posted on 07-07-2017 16:57 | By maildrop

It is statistical anomaly that the more serious the crash, the truck driver "being at fault" figure goes down. As nobody knows the outcome of the crash beforehand how is it that they cause most crashes that result in no or minor injury, about half of serious injury crashes, yet for fatal crashes it is 34%? I’ll tell you - the MoT say themselves that they collect fault figures when it is easily established, and not by court. That is, where the drivers involved, probably for insurance purposes, admit responsibility. The more serious the crash, especially fatalities, the less likely it is admitted. The reality of it is that, both statistically and in real world, they are responsible for many more fatalities than is collected by the MoT for statistical purposes. Did you find Fig 5 on the report showing the 57% truck driver at fault for ALL crashes?


Posted on 07-07-2017 12:13 | By Papamoaner

Yes that takes me back. So slow alright. You clearly have a lot of experience. I was just a part time "steerer" as they called us in those days. I remember like yesterday, going downhill with 7 tons of cement and I pushed the Eaton button down, heard the ominous grinding noise and realised, terrified, that brakes was all I had left. Nobody had told me I should never touch the diff on downhill. I was only 20 and had only had my HT (today’s class 4) for a few months. Times have changed. A mate of mine has a Caterpiller D12 with big rippers. Sealed cab, aircon, stereo, live track steering, active blade, internet. Sheepskins etc. He calls it his retirement tractor. (old bugger like me) Works mostly in riverbeds for flood control.


Posted on 07-07-2017 08:34 | By Kenworthlogger

I copied and pasted those quotes in full off the same MOT website, just for clarification. The 57% at fault figure was for minor injury crashes, not 57% of all truck crashes as Maildrop has changed it too. There were no figures i could see for no injury crashes so it makes a big difference to the picture. Its a bit like saying truck drivers were at fault in 57% of trucks that were red in colour and then some one changing it so they say truck drivers were at fault in 57% of all accidents.. Get my drift?Papamoaner most trucks back then could also only do a top speed of 80km hence the old open speed limit. Eaton still make roadranger gearboxes and with the Cummins engine i have if it was in Aussie it would pull a triple in some states so fantastic horsepower.


Posted on 07-07-2017 08:32 | By Papamoaner

I agree, but those kinds of statistics often turn out to be anecdote disguised as a statistic in drag. Rail has huge unharnessed potential here because of the long narrow nature of the whole country. I remember In earlier days rail was inhibited by staunch destructive unionism accompanied by its fellow traveller, pillaging and cronyism. Douglas fixed all that but created new problems, so now we have a rail with huge potential, but dysfunctional largely due to the complexities of competition and more cronyism. Also, They got rid of main shunting yards but overlooked the need for container lifting both off and on at regional and local sidings and train passing points , so forcing us back to trucking. It’s not unfixable. Just needs a benevolent dictator to tidy it all up. Infrastructure is already there except for local lifting


Posted on 06-07-2017 19:01 | By waiknot

So what we have established here is, you can always find a statistic to support any argument. Personally I think rail is under-utilised but we have a very strong transport lobby group who always find some stats to support what ever they are pushing.

@ Kentworthlogger - Haven't times changed

Posted on 06-07-2017 17:54 | By Papamoaner

Remember the old trucks like Bedford S and TK’s with a 6 cylinder engine of modest size, and it took ages to get up hills with traffic piled up behind, 1st gear, Eaton diff in low, engine screaming, stinking hot in summer, no air-con. Dirty filthy cab that leaked dust galore on gravel roads. But hardly ever any crashes involving trucks. Farm petrol was dyed green so you couldn’t use it in trucks to avoid tax. Now we have those big Cummins engines with serious grunt pulling much higher tonnage too. Sealed cabs, radio, air-con. You name it it’s there. But to be fair, more sophisticated braking systems now. Not saying I know much about the discussion - just a bit of experience as a semester student trying to earn a few bob. Interesting subject.


Posted on 06-07-2017 16:31 | By maildrop

Settle down. My figures are correct as per MoT. You go on to quote stats from categories that I didn’t even mention, so how could I get something wrong that I didn’t even write about? Truck drivers were found to be at fault in 57% of "accidents" involving trucks. Fact. I was quite fair in quoting that they were responsible for 34% of "accidents" that led to a fatality. Fact. Both figures are alarming. If you want to take comfort from the fact that although truck drivers cause most crashes that they are in, these only result in "minor" injuries, good for you. Oh, and like fatalities, these "minor" injuries are heavily disproportionate towards car drivers. You take take apart the different categories all day long looking for comfort but the overriding fact is that truck drivers cause most of the accidents they are in (57%). Fact.

More Truck facts Maildrop got wrong

Posted on 06-07-2017 15:40 | By Kenworthlogger

In 2015, 58 people died and a further 808 were injured in road crashes involving trucks. This was 18 percent of all deaths and 7 percent of all reported injuries on our roads.Because of their large mass, trucks tend to be over-represented in serious crashes. Deaths from crashes involving trucks make up around 19 percent of the total road toll (5 year average), while just over 6 percent of the total distance travelled on New Zealand roads is travelled by trucks.

Maildrop your quote is wrong. Here is the correct quote.

Posted on 06-07-2017 15:28 | By Kenworthlogger

The more serious the crash, the less likely it is for the truck driver to have the primary responsibility for the crash. The truck driver had the primary responsibility for about a third (34 percent) of fatal crashes, compared with over half (57 percent) of minor injury crashes.For fatal crashes that involved a truck and another road user, the truck driver had the primary responsibility for about one-quarter (26 percent) of the crashes. For minor injury crashes this figure was 47 percent.


Posted on 06-07-2017 14:48 | By Papamoaner

I disagree. I find cost is one of several significant factors influencing prices, and in my business it is the main factor. My projected capital costs are considerably reduced by the recent arrival of additive engineering, but operating costs are still high, and are the main influence on prices with compliance running second place. I can’t be bothered looking into Air NZ, but I would be surprised if the trends are not similar across the board, albeit perhaps with much higher compliance costs in that example.

Mail drop

Posted on 06-07-2017 13:10 | By waiknot

Interesting numbers, especially that Trucks only account for 6% of total distance traveled. I would have thought it would be higher. The 57% where the truck driver was at fault I assume also includes single vehicle crashes where it’s not possible for an other vehicle to be at fault.

Pap pork

Posted on 06-07-2017 10:33 | By maildrop

Cheers. Unlike you and Murray I know the Internet is mostly full of false rubbish so I tend not to rely on it and regurgitate crap from any old source. Soon I will be up to your level and thinking airlines charge based on cost.


Posted on 06-07-2017 09:46 | By Papamoaner

Good to see you getting your head around the internet at last old chap. Never be afraid of learning new stuff. Quite a bit of research on black pots and kettles on there that might also interest you. Keep up the good work. You’ll be up with the rest of us in no time at all.


Posted on 06-07-2017 08:46 | By maildrop

I decided to do more research, from a reliable source - MoT. The facts are this (for NZ not Michigan): Between 2011-15 the % of crashes involving trucks where truck driver was at fault is 57%. For fatalities they are responsible for about 34%. Crashes involving trucks account for about 20% of the road toll on average. Trucks account for just 6% of the km travelled. There you go, truck drivers are causing the majority of crashes involving trucks, but I suppose you can say that you only cause the "minor" ones. Cold comfort.

Here goes

Posted on 05-07-2017 21:11 | By maildrop

Been looking on the Transport website but it doesn’t seem to show who was at fault for truck accidents in NZ. It also doesn’t record the number of "accidents" with trucks leaving the road or spilling their load. As for "research" from Michigan-do me a favour. You do realise most "research", particularly in USA, is paid for by big business with an agenda. I wouldn’t trust it as far as I could throw, yet alone take the leap that it applies somewhere else. If I could be bothered I could find "research" from somewhere that shows the exact opposite Murray. I merely responded to Ken’s unscientific assertion about "suicidal overtaking", with my own unscientific view. Ken has a dash cam, I have eyes. We are all entitled to express a view. I just choose not to waste my time on searching for paid for "research".


Posted on 05-07-2017 19:20 | By Papamoaner

You are correct. I had missed that point.


Posted on 05-07-2017 17:57 | By waiknot

Your credibility is on the line here. Back it up please?


Posted on 05-07-2017 10:47 | By Kenworthlogger

Its not a theory. Checkout the official crash stats involving heavy vehicles and you will see the majority of crashes are caused by the car. I also have lots of dash cam footage from my own truck which does not lie.

Maildrop, PLEASE direct to source of your info or retract

Posted on 05-07-2017 10:37 | By Murray.Guy

Maildrop says, ’vast majority are due to crap truck drivers losing control of their vehicle’.... My research says quite the opposite. Can you direct us (or retract) to the basis for your comment. An example of my research, The University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute a leader in truck-related crash research, says ATA studied 8,309 fatal car-truck crashes to determine fault. 81 percent of the time, car drivers were assigned at fault, says the study, versus 27 percent for truck drivers. Many others found say the same or similar from around the world and applies here in NZ I am sure.


Posted on 05-07-2017 10:02 | By waiknot

Read the article again. Only on selected roads with a medium barrier. So the chances of a head on are virtually nonexistent.

Uniformity gets you there faster

Posted on 04-07-2017 22:27 | By Papamoaner

It’s interesting how on a long journey we repeatedly see the same high speed drivers overtaking dangerously, including on the double yellow. Then we arrive at the final destination and there they are again - no further ahead ! All that risk for what gain? Soon we will have NPR cameras here that they have overseas, ie; you couldn’t have got from Tauranga to Auckland in that time without speeding mate, so here’s your ticket ! I’m guessing RFID (radio freq ID) tags embedded by car manufacturers aren’t far away either. Whatever speed we advocate, LTNZ are correct when they say "the higher the speed, the bigger the mess" This new proposal increases the closing speed (impact) for a head-on collision, by 20%. That’s significant.


Posted on 04-07-2017 20:29 | By waiknot

If trucks are going to limited to 90km, then I suggest the left lane having a 90km speed limit and the centre lane 110km. That way no road blocks and motorists not comfortable at 110 can stay in the left lane.

What hapend

Posted on 04-07-2017 18:07 | By Angel74

to the saying that went something like bigger the speed bigger the mess.............too many road accidents resulting in death already the population be soon wiped out if the speed limit increases, alot of people already drive over 100 so raising it to 110 is just asking for trouble.


Posted on 04-07-2017 17:40 | By Capt_Kaveman

in oz not to long ago on their 110kmh limit motorways i set the cruise control at 114 and yet i was past by 50% of the traffic so in turn many were doing 115-120kmh, so like here eg Waikato with a 100 limit many are already doing 104-108 which i think is ok because the road is good enough, other places id like to see is also the motorway at Cambridge and Tauranga Eastern link


Posted on 04-07-2017 17:20 | By maildrop

Slight problem with your theory. Very few crashes involving trucks are due to silly drivers doing suicidal overtaking. The vast majority are due to crap truck drivers losing control of their vehicle, more often than not due to driving too fast for the conditions and vehicle they are in, ie, driving a truck as though it were a car. Not a good idea to encourage them to go even faster than they do already.

Heavy Vehicles

Posted on 04-07-2017 16:24 | By Kenworthlogger

Whats wrong with heavy vehicles going the same speed as cars. Being restricted to 90 km makes heavy vehicles in effect road blocks as they hold the traffic up. All modern trucks are capable of doing the same speed as cars. In other modern countries they are allowed too so they dont impede traffic and cause silly drivers to do suicidal overtaking manoeuvres risking everones lives. What difference does 10km do apart from impede traffic?


Posted on 04-07-2017 15:45 | By maildrop

Trucks restricted to 90? Who is going to tell them?


Posted on 04-07-2017 15:22 | By dumbkof2

if make it 110 no tolerance

Yes, Increase the Speed Limit......

Posted on 04-07-2017 12:49 | By The Hobbit

...but the 10km/h tolerance should be applied otherwise what’s the point in going to all that expense to push this rule through? The point is, the types of roads which will meet the criteria for this increased limit are capable of handling vehicles travelling at 110km/h and even more and therefore the 10km/h tolerance should be applied here too. Modern cars especially are capable of travelling at higher speeds safely - stopping distances are much shorter these days with technology such as ABS, tyres are more advanced as are the road surfaces. Agree - HGVs should be restricted to 90km/h.


Posted on 04-07-2017 11:58 | By dumbkof2

make it 110 so all the idiots can go 120 130 140 i will stick to my 95 to 100 thanks

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to make a comment. Login Now
Opinion Poll

What do you think about businsses rejecting people’s job applications if they have tattoos?

Already Voted!