Should we focus on where we’ll get the biggest safety improvements?


Little girl on scooterWe think it makes sense to prioritise our spending over the next three years on speed management and walking and cycling facilities where we’ll get the biggest safety improvements for most people. The focus would be on high-risk places where we can reduce the number of crashes happening. We would connect closely with the community and use the NZ Transport Agency’s Speed Management Guide to help us with this.

Why the contribution is important

In our quickly growing city some of our roads are no longer safe for the way people now use them, such as roads on the edge of the city where people now want to walk or bike.

by ProjectTeam1 on October 25, 2018 at 11:33AM

Current Rating

Average score : 3.5
Based on : 6 votes


  • Posted by judymac November 01, 2018 at 13:25

    I would be deeply concerned about you using NZTA's speed management guides, actually. NZTA is still primarily focused on vehicle movement at all costs, and NZTA is responsible for state highways still operating at excessive speeds in urban areas - Cobham Drive is a prize example. We need to use some different methods of assessment - like listening to local residents and actually taking action. When the people who live in an area describe it as dangerous, they probably know what they're talking about.
  • Posted by lyall November 01, 2018 at 22:05

    You haven't meaningfully connected with the community so far, so what's going to change? (e.g. the inept way in which the 40km/h continuous limit was applied outside Endeavour Primary School, but the raised pedestrian area at the West side isn't safe to traverse at any more than 20km/h. Was that devious intentional design or inept contract management?
  • Posted by Puketotara November 02, 2018 at 10:51

    First of all, using the term roads shows how far HCC has to go. We need STREETS not roads. We need to reallocate space to pedestrians and cyclists and away from vehicles. We need to prioritise the safety of our most vulnerable street users. Lower speeds, wider footpaths, separated cycle lanes. Intersections need to be safe for everyone to navigate - that means no more free left turns, no more blowing out the intersection to 4 to 8 lanes in each direction, rather than maintain the two or four lanes in each direction. narrower crossing distances are safer for pedestrians. Longer pedestrian phases at crossings. More crossings.
  • Posted by SimonY November 02, 2018 at 15:30

    Yes, this makes sense
  • Posted by Troutcatcha November 04, 2018 at 08:32

    It does make a lot of sense.

    We also need a few red light cameras operating in the city. The number of cars running red lights seem to be increasing. One of the worst intersections is Normandy Ave Lorne Street where vehicles (particularly trucks) coming up Cobham Drive don’t make any attempt to stop for the red light as they turn right into Lorne St. it will be just a matter of time before someone is killed
  • Posted by lewis_ian November 04, 2018 at 10:32

    100% agree with Puketotara's comment above: "We need STREETS not roads. We need to reallocate space to pedestrians and cyclists and away from vehicles. We need to prioritise the safety of our most vulnerable street users. Lower speeds, wider footpaths, separated cycle lanes."
  • Posted by PaulPaulPaul November 06, 2018 at 10:55

    Yes, focus on this, but consider not just high risk spots, but full journeys. For example, a cycle commute is only as good as the weakest points. What cycle journeys are not happening because of high risk spots? Plotting journeys and taking a strategic approach will get more people out of cars, making our streets safer.
  • Posted by dan November 10, 2018 at 13:19

    The focus should be on reducing travel times by car.
    That is the way the vast majority of people travel, and anyone who thinks this is going to change significantly is on a flight of fancy. No-one I know is getting out of their car any time soon, no matter what priorities are given to other transport methods.
    It's not the council's job to change how people live, it is to provide the infrastructure for how people want to live.
  • Posted by judymac November 10, 2018 at 21:32

    Again, a negative response from dan. Presumably he would have also supported the ongoing sale of tobacco on the basis that everybody wanted to smoke cigarettes so why should anyone stop them? Given sensible alternatives to private car use, many people would take them. There is also the problem that petrol costs are going to continue to rise to the point where many people can't afford to drive a car, and we are still quite some distance from a fully electric fleet. Within a city, especially a relatively small one like ours, it is possible to get around efficiently using a combination of cycling, walking and public transport - but it does have to be made a priority and the public transport needs to be much more efficient than it is now. Continuing with private car use will just guarantee we head towards the nightmare that is Auckland, where travel via private car is so appalling that it wastes many hours of people's time every week.
  • Posted by dan November 11, 2018 at 13:44

    You call it negative, I call it practical.
    1. Last time I checked, it was still possible to buy tobacco. And if I wanted to smoke, why should you or the council stop me? Isn't it my problem, not yours?
    2. The key word is "sensible". Biking, walking, and public transport aren't "sensible". Who wants to take an hour to get to work and arrive a stinking ball of sweat?
    3. If you think getting around Auckland in a car is bad/slow you should see what the alternative travel methods are like. Why do you think Aucklanders still keep using their cars in spite of the traffic?
  • Posted by PeterH November 13, 2018 at 09:44

    For over 7 years there have been ZERO Students die on Hamilton road (13year old, Jun 2011), the focus should be to never ever have a child kill on Hamilton’s transport network.
  • Posted by Jo November 14, 2018 at 18:51

    A blanket speed limit reduction keeps it simple. It avoids confusion and helps support people using other forms of transport.
  • Posted by BryanB November 14, 2018 at 20:18

    Walking and cycling yeah right - how much has been spent already. What percentage of people in Hamilton regularly bike?? Listen to Mike Hosking!! It's a scam. Life is getting busier than ever we need faster cars, electric scooter doing 35km/h etc
  • Posted by HR November 17, 2018 at 06:17

    Agree with the first 3 comments, loved Puketotaras comment. My sentiments align with these.
  • Posted by Berry November 21, 2018 at 19:17

    As some of these comments already point out - HCC have lost the plot when it comes to establishing what needs to be done and how with road safety.
    First - lobby for a law change to make ALL drivers have insurance. This action will allow the high risk drivers and their vehicles (including recidivists) to be excluded from our roads. Harsher penalties in line with other OECD countries should also be initiated - together with crushing of any vehicles that are not roadworthy.
    Make the tyre manufacturer's guidelines on tread depth the legal limit - NOT one made-up by NZ!
    Instigate a scheme to get older vehicles OFF the roads - an incentive with existing car dealerships is possible and will save the council money in the long run and save lives.
    Get tough on WoFs - get the fraudsters OUT of business and get the police to check car-parks and stop checks for any unroadworthiness - get them OFF the roads.
    Help reduce the amount of vehicles on the roads at peak hours - incentivise employers to have flexible working hours for their staff and for them to help staff use public transport or cycleways.
  • Posted by Jw44 November 25, 2018 at 09:30

    Yes the priority should be on safety for all but especially for walking and cycling facilities which are most used by those who have the least choice when it comes to transport such as the young
  • Posted by lvdejin November 28, 2018 at 12:52

    The give way rule at the intersection of killarney road and Queens ave has been replaced with roundabout. It used to cause a lot of confusion and crashes. However, this doesn't reduce the traffic. Every morning and evening, lots of cars still need to go through this roundabout and the roundabout at Lake road and Queens ave. I have seen traffic backed up all the time. The whole transport network wasn't designed suitable in the beginning without a bigger picture. It's too late to say this now but what we can do to reduce traffic is to provide more walkways and cycle ways. Western rail trail is good for a lot of people to get to CBD but we need more to connect to CBD and around the city. We do have a lot of paths around the city but they don't link all the way through.
  • Posted by Jayt December 04, 2018 at 23:05

    These "high risk places"...Where is the data showing the current safety rates on specific Hamilton streets, especially these dangerous areas? HCC constantly performs speed monitoring on residential streets across Hamilton. You also have data on injuries. If what I am lead to believe is true, the stats don't support MANY of the safer speed areas you have implemented.
    Where is the data on the before and after speeds for the 40km/h safer speed areas? The last data we saw showed that the average 85%ile speed for half of these areas had not dropped at all after implementation. Then nothing published for 6 years.

    You consult us but make sure we have only the data that suits your intended outcome (Or no data at all).
  • Posted by aitkensc December 06, 2018 at 11:34

    Focus on where high risk areas are = red light cameras, at (pretty much) every intersection. Forest Lake Rd/Victoria St/Ulster St/Te Rapa Rd intersection is prime example of poor motorist behaviour. Add most of hte Mill St intersections (with Tristram St, Willoughby St, Ulster St, Victoria St) and the Hamilton City Council could actually turn a profit each year and make some serious improvements to our city (as well as knocking back those rate increases for which we see no increase in level or quality of services)
  • Posted by Phred December 06, 2018 at 18:15

    No, I think Hamilton should lead NZ by lowering the speed on all roads within the city boundary. This would need enforcement for a year or two to educate the public, and I would recommend harsher penalties for those not obeying the rules.
  • Posted by DBfish December 07, 2018 at 14:42

    Those that need the most protection are our children. Unlike adults they are often unable to correctly judge the conditions and most likely to make a mistake. Many children and parents want to cycle or walk to school and providing a safe way for them to do this will also encourage them to continue the use of alternative transport when they get older. Cycle lanes that sandwich children in between parked cars (that often pull out or open doors) and moving traffic are not safe. However as someone who has been hit by a cyclist on the footpath and ended up at A&E simply allowing cyclist and scooters to use the footpath is not always the answer either. Wider shared paths such as the one along Wairere Dr seem to fulfill both saftey and separation issues. With regards to traffic accidents that only involve vehicles, most of these appear to happen at intersections and are exacerbated by traffic congestion. Please priorities keeping our children safe then fix the congestion.
Log in or register to add comments and rate ideas