THE PRESS THURSDAY, AUGUST 23, 1984. Speed limit and sense

Press, 23 August 1984, Page 20

THE PRESS THURSDAY, AUGUST 23, 1984. Speed limit and sense

Amid talk of “eyes in the sky,” and other proposals, the Ministry of Transport seems about to devote much effort and expense to enforcing an open-road speed limit that is generally regarded as unrealistic, and which is almost universally ignored. The Ministry’s traffic engineers, the Automobile Association, and the Defensive Driving Council (among others) have urged that the open-road limit should be raised. Speed, like the road toll itself, is an emotive subject, particularly in a year when the number of road deaths is significantly greater than in the previous year. There is no evidence that the additional deaths and injuries this year, deplorable as they may be, have been the result of accidents on the open road caused by drivers exceeding the present 80 km/h speed limit. The Minister of Transport, Mr Prebble, said earlier this month that the number of deaths among cyclists is up by 118 per cent this year, and fatal pedestrian accidents are up 70 per cent. Speed may have had something to do with many of these accidents; but speed on the open road will not have been notable among the causes of these increases. Driving at a safe speed is not the same as driving at, or below, the limit set by the law. The relationship between the two may often be slight. Traffic, weather, the nature or condition of the road, and the condition of the vehicle or its driver, may make an open-road speed of even 50 km/h dangerous to the point of recklessness, even though this speed is well below the legal limit. Equally, a speed of 20 km/h or more above the legal limit may be safe. The link between speed limits and safety is more tenuous than the public is commonly led to believe. A few years ago, Ministry of Transport accident statistics for one year recorded more death and injury accidents caused when vehicles were reversing at a walking pace, than were caused when vehicles were exceeding 96 km/h. Circumstances, not speed alone, dictate safety. More recently, about a third of all drivers killed in accidents are believed to have been travelling too fast for the conditions — but not necessarily at speeds exceeding the speed limit. Three-quarters of these drivers had also been drinking. No speed limit can be appropriate for all conditions and all drivers. It can, at best, be no more than a compromise. When discussing the speed limit, the Parliamentary Select Committee on Road Safety should consider with some care the different limits applying to different vehicles. At present, the limit for trucks, and for vehicles towing trailers, is 70 km/h. If a motorist were to attempt to overtake such a vehicle without exceeding the present 80 km/h general speed limit, his car would be on the wrong side of the road for more than one kilometre — unless he pulled very sharply in front of the vehicle he had just overtaken. He would run the risk of colliding head-on with an approaching vehicle that was more than two kilometres away when he started his overtaking manoeuvre. There are very few places, indeed, where it is safe to be on the wrong side of the road for a kilometre or more. This dangerous differential could be overcome in two ways: either by leaving the speed-limit for trucks and trailers where it is now, at 70 km/h, and by raising the general limit; or by raising both limits to the same figure. A differential of less than 20 km/h is impracticable, and even dangerous.

Increasing the limit for heavy vehicles, it may be argued, would mean more damage to the roads; it is undeniable that many, or most, trucks and buses are already travelling at 90 km/h and more on the open road. Anyone who has attempted to observe the 80 km/h limit can attest to this, and the Ministry of Transport checks have demonstrated it to be so. The same applies to cars towing trailers, although a higher limit might well go hand-in-hand with stricter warrant of fitness checks of trailers and couplings. Regard must be had for preserving the roads from an undue pounding by heavy vehicles. A single speed limit, higher than the present limit but possibly more likely to be respected, is not likely to increase the speed of heavy vehicles at all. The advantage of a single limit, apart from ending the confusion which now often exists in the minds of those who do not regularly tow trailers, is that vehicle speeds should generally be made more uniform, thus greatly reducing the need for overtaking. Not all drivers of trucks and towing vehicles would be able, or would want, to maintain the higher speeds; but the smoothing of the traffic flow should nonetheless be significant, and a contribution to safety. Heated debates about speed limits have gone on since cars first had to be preceded by a man with a red flag, and to this day the arguments have varied only in detail. The two sides have drawn no closer as years have passed, and both can cite endless experiments and scientific or pseudo-scientific evidence to support their opinions. In New Zealand, in 1984, the 80 km/h open-road speed limit is held in general contempt, and the enforcement of it earns the unfortunate traffic officers the ill-will of countless citizens who regard themselves as sane, careful, and intelligent drivers. If the most stringent enforcement of the limit were possible — and it is not — the offenders would still be counted in thousands daily, and easy-to-prove speed-limit prosecutions would assume even greater precedence in enforcement than such less-easily proved, but dangerous and prevalent offences as failure to give way, failure to keep left, following too closely, dangerous overtaking, failure to signal, and inattention. If official and unofficial road-safety advocates showed as much enthusiasm for the effective enforcement of these matters as they show on the question of the open-road speed limit, the cause of road safety would benefit greatly. In the meantime, the limit should be raised to a realistic figure that has some likelihood of being respected by most motorists. As in the months after the 1973 fuel shock, the recent sharp rise in the price of petrol can be expected to reduce road accidents simply by greatly reducing the number of kilometres travelled. A sense of economy may also restrain many drivers to travel at more economical speeds. On all counts, the fear that a higher speed limit for cars will produce more accidents is unfounded. Drivers who prefer lower speeds will maintain these. Others will continue to drive at what they think are safe speeds, commonly at 90 or 100 km/h. A general limit of 90 km/h, similar to the 55 m.p.h. limit that ' prevailed until 1973, must be entertained without any difficulty. For cars, a limit of 100 km/h would be reasonable; for long and heavy vehicles, or vehicles with trailers, a limit of 80 km/h would then make sense, minimise road damage, and allow a margin for safe overtaking.