1 Executive summary
1.1 The survey of public attitudes to road safety is part of the Ministry’s suite of tools used in evidence-based policy development and evaluation of progress in road safety. The survey gathers comparable measurements of public attitudes and self reported behaviours to assess the effects of road safety legislation, enforcement, and publicity programmes. Each year the survey includes core items but, over the years, other items have been added or removed to reflect current policy issues and interests.
1.2 General attitudes to road safety and enforcement. There has been little change in the perception of safety of road travel and road standards over most of the time the survey has been running. Around 80 percent of New Zealanders say our roads are fairly or very safe.
Public support for road safety advertising and police enforcement remains high, with most people wanting the same or more than the current levels. Similarly, most people want the severity of penalties to be the same or increased.
1.3 Alcohol-impaired driving. Most people recognise that drink-driving is risky with only 8 percent saying there is not much chance of an accident when driving after drinking if you are careful. Most of the drink-driving indicators have either slowly improved or remained fairly static over the last decade.
1.4 Drink-driving enforcement. About three-quarters (72 percent) of New Zealanders agree that compulsory breath testing enforcement helps lower the road toll. This is down from a recent high of 78 percent in 2012. Most of the key attitudes show small improvements across time, leading to definite improvements long-term. For example, in 1996, 46 percent of respondents thought the risk of being caught drink-driving was small. After dropping to as low as 32 percent in 2004, this rose again to over 40 percent before slowly improving to 33 percent in 2016 (see Figure 1).
This year there was a significant drop in the percentage of people who said they had been stopped at an alcohol check-point; 47 percent, down from 52 in 2015.
Also, there was an increase in the number of people who say they seldom see an alcohol checkpoint unless there is a blitz.
Figure 1: The risk of being caught is small (decreasing trend reflects improvement in safety attitudes)
1.5 Speed and speed enforcement. The majority of New Zealanders recognise the risks of speeding, with only 16 percent saying there is not much chance of an accident when speeding if you are careful.
The majority of New Zealanders recognise the risks of speeding, with only 16 percent saying there is not much chance of an accident when speeding if you are careful.
Enforcement of the current speed limits is supported by the majority of New Zealanders, with nearly three-quarters (73 percent) agreeing that enforcing the speed limit helps lower the road toll.
This year there was a big increase in the perception that a driver would receive a ticket if travelling past a police officer at speeds of 110 km/h and above.
1.6 Speed cameras. Sixty-three percent of New Zealanders agree that the use of speed cameras helps lower the road toll.
The perceived chance of receiving a speed camera ticket when travelling at speeds of 105 km/h or 110 km/h has increased over recent years.
1.7 General enforcement and compliance. The perceived chance of being stopped by Police, if breaking a traffic law other than drink-driving or speeding, improved up until 2010 but has been fairly static since then. In 1997, 23 percent thought it was likely or fairly likely they would be stopped. From 2010 to 2016 this has ranged from 36 to 41 percent.
1.8 Safety belts and child restraints. Most recognised the safety benefits of safety belts with less than 7 percent stating that the risk of being seriously injured in a crash if you are not wearing a safety belt is low.
The majority of New Zealanders (87 percent) agreed that enforcing the use of safety belts helps to lower the road toll. Most of the indicators relating to safety belts and child restraints have shown improvements across time.
From 1 November 2013, all child passengers are required to be in a car seat or booster seat until their seventh birthday. A question about restraint use by children aged 5 to 6, and 7 to 9 was asked each year from 2013. The responses indicate an increase in the use of booster seats as opposed to safety belts by the 7 to 9 age group.
1.9 Fatigue and distraction. Fatigue when travelling on holiday or long trips was a problem mentioned by 27 percent of drivers. This is similar to the previous five years (the current fatigue question was first asked in 2011).
This year drivers were asked about their use of cell phones while driving over the previous month. Thirty-eight percent admitted to using a phone for texting and 22 percent for hand held phone calls. Both these activities are illegal.
1.10 Roading. Over the past decade, between 94 percent and 97 percent of respondents have stated that improving road engineering and design is fairly or very important for road safety. This question was not asked in 2016.
2 Introduction
The survey of public attitudes to road safety has been undertaken periodically since 1974 and annually since 1994. The survey evaluates attitudes to road safety issues, primarily alcohol-impaired driving and speed. From 1994 to 2004 the survey was conducted for the then Land Transport Safety Authority. Since 2005 it has been conducted for the Ministry of Transport.
The survey is focussed on alcohol, speed and safety belts. In addition, respondents are asked their views on more general road safety issues.
Some justification for this focus is provided in crash statistics. In 2015, 30 percent of fatal crashes and 12 percent of injury crashes had alcohol and/or drugs as a contributing factor. 32 percent of fatal crashes and 18 percent of injury crashes had “too fast for conditions” as a contributing factor. 91 people were killed not wearing safety belts or restraints in fatal crashes. Crash investigators considered that at least 19 people would have survived if they had been wearing safety belts.
This report presents the results of the survey under the following headings:
general attitudes to road safety and enforcement
alcohol-impaired driving
drink-driving enforcement
speed and speed enforcement
speed cameras
general enforcement and compliance
safety belts and child restraints
fatigue and distraction
roading.
3 Method
The fieldwork for the survey is carried out by an independent survey company, TNS New Zealand. Surveys are carried out in May and June of each year by trained interviewers who conduct face-to-face interviews in the respondent's home.
The sample is chosen to be representative of the New Zealand adult population and includes men and women aged 15 and over from towns, cities and rural areas throughout New Zealand. In 2016, 1,666 people were interviewed, 1,527 of whom held driver licences. Further details of the sample and methodology may be found in Appendix A.
4 General attitudes to road safety and enforcement
4.1 Overall, the vast majority of New Zealanders were supportive of road safety enforcement, penalties and advertising measures aimed at reducing the road toll. Around 90 percent thought these measures should be increased or maintained at current levels.
4.2 How safe is road travel in New Zealand? Twelve percent of New Zealanders described road travel in this country as ‘very safe’. A further 72 percent described it as ‘fairly safe’; 14 percent described it as ‘fairly unsafe’ and 2 percent as ‘very unsafe’[1]. Overall, 84 percent described the roads as ‘very safe’ or ‘fairly safe’ (see Figure 2).
Figure 2: General attitudes
4.3 Road safety enforcement. Overall, public support for Police enforcement remains high. Forty-two percent of New Zealanders said that Police effort to catch people breaking road safety laws should be increased further. After a significant decrease last year, this is an increase back to the levels of the previous 5 years. A further 52 percent wanted that effort maintained at current levels. Only 5 percent thought Police effort should be decreased. Since these questions were first asked in 1995, there has been a shift away from thinking there should be more Police enforcement. Most of this change took place before 2005. Since then support for more Police effort has slightly decreased with more people thinking that the level of enforcement is about right (see Figure 3).
Figure 3: How much effort should the Police put into catching people...
4.4 Penalties. In 2016, 35 percent of New Zealanders said that penalties for breaking road safety laws should be increased. Fifty-six percent thought penalties should remain about the same as they are now, and only 6 percent were in favour of reducing the severity of penalties. Over the last five years, support for more severe penalties has decreased with more people thinking penalties are about right (Figure 4).
Figure 4: Should penalties for breaking road safety laws be...
4.5 Advertising. Forty-three percent of New Zealand adults thought that there should be more publicity and advertising about road safety. Fifty-two percent thought the amount of publicity and advertising should remain about the same as at present. Only 4 percent wanted to see a reduction in publicity and advertising about road safety (Figure 5).
Figure 5: Should the amount of publicity and advertising about road safety be...
4.6 Road design and standards. Thirteen percent of New Zealanders described the design and standard of the roads they normally used as ‘very safe’. A further 67 percent thought that their usual roads were ‘fairly safe’. Twenty percent described the design and standard of the roads they normally used as ‘very unsafe’ or ‘fairly unsafe’. There has been little change in this perception over recent years (Figure 2).
4.7 Northland, Gisborne, Bay of Plenty and Canterbury residents were most likely to describe the design and standards of their roads as unsafe. Thirty-seven percent of Northland residents, 33 percent of Gisborne residents and 30 percent of Bay of Plenty and Canterbury residents described the design and standard of the roads they normally used as ‘very’ or ‘fairly’ unsafe.
5 Alcohol-impaired driving
5.1 Figure 6 and Figure 7 show some key attitudinal measures related to drink-driving.
Figure 6: Attitudes to alcohol (increasing trend reflects improvement in safety attitudes)Figure 7: Attitudes to alcohol (decreasing trend reflects improvement in safety attitudes)
5.2 Risk of crash. Most people recognise that drink-driving is risky. However, 8 percent of New Zealanders said that ‘there is not much chance of an accident when driving after drinking if you are careful’ (see Figure 7 above).
5.3 People in Manawatu/Wanganui, Northland, Auckland, Gisborne and Waikato were least likely to recognise the risk of drink-driving. Fifteen percent of Manawatu/Wanganui residents, 12 percent of Northland residents, 10 percent of Auckland and Gisborne residents and 9 percent of Waikato residents said that there was not much chance of an accident when driving after drinking if you are careful.
5.4 Blood alcohol limit. In 2013, 60 percent of New Zealanders favoured a lower legal blood-alcohol limit for driving. This increased significantly from 40 percent in 2006 to 63 percent in 2010. There were no statistically significant changes from 2010 to 2013 (see Figure 6). This question has not been asked from 2014 when the blood alcohol limit for drivers aged 20 years and over was lowered from 80 to 50mg/100ml of blood.
5.5 Behaviour and attitudes. A new question was introduced in 2014, asking how much people would be drinking after the alcohol limit was lowered from 80 to 50mg/100ml. Fifty-two percent said they never drink before driving, 25 percent said they will drink less, 22 percent said they will drink about the same, 0 percent said they will drink more, and 1 percent didn’t know.
5.6 In 2015 the question was rephrased to ask about how the new limit, which came into effect in December 2014, had affected drivers’ drinking before driving. Over a third (35 percent) said they now drink less before driving.
Figure 8: How will/has the lower legal limit affect/ed your behaviour?
5.7 In 2016 there was no equivalent question about the effect of the change in the blood alcohol limit on drivers' drinking behaviour.
5.8 A further new question was introduced in 2014, asking respondents how many standard drinks they would be comfortable drinking in an hour if they were planning to drive immediately afterwards, assuming the alcohol limit is lowered from 80mg to 50mg.
5.9 The concept of a ‘standard drink’ was explained as one can of beer, a small glass of wine or a 30ml serve of spirits and supported by a photograph showing a 330ml can of beer, a small glass of wine and a 30ml serve of spirits.
5.10 In 2015 the question was rephrased to reflect the fact that the limit had been lowered to 50mg/100ml. Figure 9 shows the results. From 2014 to 2015, there was an increase in the percentage of people who said they would be comfortable driving if they had limited themselves to one or no drinks during the previous hour. In 2016 this percentage dropped again, back to the 2014 level for women and to below the 2014 level for men.
Figure 9: Drinking before driving
5.11 In 2016, 89 percent of women said they would be comfortable driving after having one or no drinks during the hour, compared with 62 percent of men. A further 7 percent of women and 27 percent of men said two drinks. For most people these levels of drinking (one drink in an hour for a woman, two for a man) will result in a blood alcohol level slightly less than 50 mg/100ml[2].
5.12 Among people who admitted to having driven while slightly intoxicated, 49 percent thought they would be comfortable to drive having had one or no drinks, and a further 37 percent with two drinks. Thirteen percent said three or more drinks. For other people 83 percent said they would be comfortable with one or no drinks, 12 percent said two drinks and 2 percent said three or more drinks.
5.13 Social influences. Peer pressure and social drinking remain strong influences. Among people who admitted to having driven while slightly intoxicated, 49 percent thought they would be comfortable to drive having had one or no drinks, and a further 37 percent with two drinks. Thirteen percent said three or more drinks. For other people 83 percent said they would be comfortable with one or no drinks, 12 percent said two drinks and 2 percent said three or more drinks.
5.14 Peer pressure was felt most strongly among the young. Forty-six percent of people aged 15 to 19 and 48 percent of those aged 20 to 24 said it was difficult to go easy and drink less than the group.
5.15 Self-reported driving while ‘slightly intoxicated’. The percentage of drivers who said they had driven while slightly intoxicated during the 12 months before the survey was unchanged from last year (see Figure 7). In 2016, 18 percent of drivers, 25 percent of male drivers and 23 percent of 20-24 year old drivers said they had driven while slightly intoxicated during the last year. (‘Slightly intoxicated’ was as self-reported by the driver).
5.16 Effectiveness of law. Sixty-one percent of New Zealanders said that our drink-driving laws were ‘very’ or ‘quite’ effective at reducing the road toll. This is the same as in 2015 and remains higher than in any of the previous 10 years (Figure 6).
5.17 Thirty-four percent said that the drink-driving laws were not very effective. Only 3 percent thought that New Zealand’s drink-driving laws had no effect on the road toll. (Two percent said they didn’t know).
5.18 Penalties. Forty-seven percent agreed with the statement ‘penalties for drinking and driving are not very severe even if you are caught’. This is a small increase from last year (44 percent) but remains lower than any year in the previous decade. The response to this question may reflect either an informed view that penalties are not severe or a lack of awareness of the severity of current drink-driving penalties.
5.19 People aged 30 and over were more likely to think penalties are not very severe (51 percent) than those aged 15-24 (37 percent).
5.20 Drink and drugged driving. A new question about driving while affected by drugs, with or without alcohol, was introduced in 2014. In 2016, seven percent said they had driven while affected by prescription or pharmacy drugs, including 1 percent combined with alcohol. Two percent said they had driven while affected by other drugs (whether legal or not), including just under 1 percent combined with alcohol.
Driven while affected by...
And alcohol
No alcohol
Total
prescription or pharmacy drugs
1%
7%
7%
other drugs
1%
2%
2%
Note: the numbers in this table are rounded to the nearest percent. The unrounded numbers add correctly.
5.21 Over twice as many males (2.7 percent) said they had driven while affected by ‘other drugs’ with or without alcohol, compared with females (1.2 percent).
6 Drink-driving enforcement
6.1 Figure 10 and Figure 11 show key attitudes towards drink-driving enforcement measures, including compulsory breath testing. A number of key measures have shown a small improvement in safety perceptions.
Figure 10: Attitudes to drink-driving enforcement (increasing trend reflects improvement in safety attitudes)
Figure 11: Attitudes to drink-driving enforcement (decreasing trend reflects improvement in safety attitudes)
6.2 Compulsory Breath Testing (CBT) lowers road toll. Nearly three quarters (72 percent) of New Zealanders agreed with the statement that ‘compulsory breath testing helps to lower the road toll’, down from 78 percent in 2012. Thirteen percent disagreed with this statement. The remaining 14 percent said they were neutral or didn’t know (see Figure 10).
6.3 Drink-driving enforcement. One third (33 percent) of New Zealanders said that the risk of being caught drink-driving was small (see Figure 11).
6.4 Checkpoints. The number of people who said that they ‘seldom saw checkpoints except during blitzes’ increased to the highest level since 2009 (see Figure 11). In 2016, 60 percent said they seldom saw checkpoints. People living in Manawatu/Wanganui (78 percent), Otago (76 percent) and Southland (72 percent) were more likely than residents of other regions to say that they seldom saw a checkpoint.
6.5 Forty-seven percent of drivers reported having been stopped at an alcohol checkpoint at least once during the preceding 12 months. This is down from 52 percent in 2015 and is the lowest since 2009.
6.6 Thirteen percent of all drivers reported that they had been stopped at a checkpoint three or more times in the last year. Male drivers (18 percent) are more likely than female drivers (9 percent) to have been stopped three or more times in the last.
6.7 Avoiding checkpoints. Thirty-eight percent of New Zealanders said that they could tell where checkpoints would be. Sixty-two percent of Gisborne residents and about 50 percent of Bay of Plenty and Northland residents thought they knew where checkpoints would be.
6.8 Twenty-three percent of New Zealanders said they could often avoid checkpoints if they saw them early enough (Figure 11), and 19 percent said they used the back streets to drive home when they might be over the limit. People living in Manawatu/Wanganui (40 percent) and Gisborne (36 percent) were more likely than others to say that checkpoints could be avoided if you saw them early enough. Those in Manawatu (32 percent) and Waikato (24 percent) were more likely to say that they used the back streets to drive home when they might be over the limit.
6.9 Compulsory screening. Fourteen percent of New Zealanders thought that some people stopped at checkpoints were not tested even when they were over the limit (Figure 11). This is back up to the level in 2014 after a drop to 11 percent in 2015. Twenty percent of those aged between 20 and 39 thought that some people weren’t tested, compared to 10 percent of those aged 40 and over. Males (16 percent) were more likely than females (13 percent) to think that some people are not tested.
6.10 Chance of being stopped late at night. Fifty percent of New Zealanders thought there was a good chance of being stopped at a checkpoint if driving late at night. Twenty-five percent said they disagreed that there was a good chance of being stopped. The remaining 24 percent said they were neutral or didn’t know.
6.11 Chance of being stopped, by driving situation. Fifty-eight percent of New Zealanders would expect to be stopped and tested if they were drink-driving in a large city. A further 26 percent rated the chance as 50-50.
6.12 Thirty-seven percent thought there was a high chance of being stopped and tested if they were drink-driving on a major highway. Thirty-three percent thought they would be stopped if they were drink-driving in a small town. Fourteen percent of New Zealanders said they would expect to be stopped if they were drink-driving on a rural road.
6.13 Chance of being stopped, by time of day. Drivers perceive they are most likely to be stopped and breath-tested through the evening and early morning. Fifty-three percent of New Zealanders said they would expect to be stopped and breath-tested if they were drink-driving between 10pm and midnight. Forty-one percent would expect to be caught if they were drink-driving between midnight and 2am (see Figure 10). Thirty-nine percent said they would expect to be stopped if they drank and drove between 6pm and 10pm.
6.14 Fewer people thought they would be caught if drinking and driving between 2am and 8am (28 percent), or during the day (14 percent).
7 Speed and speed enforcement
7.1 As the results in this chapter shows, the majority of New Zealanders recognise the risks of speeding and support enforcement of the speed limit. Figure 12 and Figure 13 show trends in key speed-related measures.
Figure 12: Attitudes to speed enforcement (increasing trend reflects improvement in safety attitudes)
Figure 13: Attitudes to speed and speed enforcement (decreasing trend reflects improvement in safety attitudes)
(Note that the scale differs from the previous graph)
7.2 Risk of crash. Sixteen percent of New Zealanders agreed with the statement ‘there is not much chance of an accident when speeding if you are careful’. This indicates that most people understand the role of speed in road safety. This measure has been fluctuating in the 14 to 19 percent range in recent years (see Figure 13).
7.3 Males were more likely to think speeding wasn’t dangerous as long as they were careful (22 percent) than females (10 percent). Failing to acknowledge the risk was also more common among Auckland (19 percent) and Wellington (18 percent) residents.
7.4 Driving fast. Thirty-eight percent of drivers said that they enjoyed driving fast on the open road. This has fluctuated in the mid to late thirties for the last decade (see Figure 13).
7.5 Overall, 42 percent of males and 34 percent of females said they liked driving fast on the open road. Young drivers were more likely to say they liked driving fast than older ones: 49 percent of drivers aged 15 to 24 said they liked it, compared to 39 percent of those aged 25 to 59, and 29 percent of those aged 60 and over.
7.6 Fifty-six percent of male drivers aged 15-24 said that they liked driving fast. Drivers who think the risk of being caught speeding is low are also more likely than others to say they like driving fast (43 percent compared to 37 percent of other drivers). Similarly, people who admitted driving while intoxicated are more likely than others to say they like driving fast (44 percent compared to 37 percent of other drivers).
7.7 Effectiveness of enforcement. Support for speed enforcement remains relatively high. Nearly three-quarters (73 percent) of New Zealanders agreed with the statement ‘enforcing the speed limit helps to lower the road toll’; 14 percent disagreed and 12 percent said they were neutral on this issue).
7.8 Risk of being caught. Just under a quarter (24 percent) of New Zealanders agreed with the statement ‘the risk of being caught speeding is small’ (Figure 13). This has dropped from about 30 percent 5 years ago. Males (26 percent) are more likely than females (21 percent) to think the risk of being caught speeding is small.
7.9 Speed limits. As in recent years, the great majority of New Zealanders (80 percent) said that speed limits on the roads they normally use are about right. This is a significant decrease from last year (87 percent). Only 6 percent said they were too high and 11 percent that they were too low.
7.10 Open road speed limit. When people were asked directly whether the 100 km/h speed limit should be raised, lowered or kept as it is, 71 percent said they wanted it kept as it is, 4 percent thought it should be lowered and 25 percent thought it should be raised (Figure 14). This is a significant change from last year when 78 percent said they wanted it kept as it is and 18 percent thought it should be raised.
Figure 14: Should the 100km/h open road limit be...
7.11 People who had received speeding tickets were more likely than others to say the speed limit should be raised. Thirty-one percent of people who had received a speeding ticket thought the 100km/h limit should be raised.
7.12 Urban speed limit. Support for retaining the current 50 km/h speed limit was similarly strong. Eighty-five percent of New Zealanders said that the urban 50km/h speed limit should be retained and a further 6 percent that it should be lowered. Since these questions were first asked in 1995, there has been a gradual decline in support for raising the urban speed limit, from 21 percent in 1995 to 8 percent in 2016 (Figure 15).
Figure 15: Should the 50km/h urban speed limit be...
7.13 Speed limits around schools. A question was introduced in 2011, asking respondents what they thought the speed limit around schools in urban areas should be. (Options were not given; the actual answer was recorded). Figure 16 shows the results. In 2016, half (52 percent) thought the speed limit around urban schools should be 30 km/h or less. Forty-two percent gave answers between 31 and 40 km/h and 6 percent said 41-50 km/h. Less than 1 percent said the limit around schools should be more than 50 km/h.
Figure 16: Speed limits around schools should be ...
7.14 Definition of speeding. Participants were asked ‘On the open road, what speed do you consider to be speeding?’ Thirty-nine percent named speeds of 105 km/h or less and 34 percent named speeds of 106-110 km/h as ‘speeding’. A further 9 percent named speeds of 111-115 km/h.
7.15 Automatic licence suspension for speeding. In 2015 most New Zealanders said licence suspension for high speeds is fair. This question was not asked in 2016. The threshold for automatic licence suspension is 40 km/h over the posted permanent speed limit[4], or 140 km/h on the open road. In 2015, automatic loss of licence at 140 km/h was described as ‘fair’ or ‘very fair’ by 80 percent of New Zealanders (Figure 12). This has gradually increased from 68 percent in 1999 to 78 percent in 2007 and has been fairly stable since. Only 7 percent said automatic loss of licence at 140 km/h would be unfair (the remainder were neutral or said they didn’t know).
7.16 The question asked how fair or unfair it would be for a driver to ‘automatically lose their licence’. The actual penalty is licence suspension for 28 days. It is possible that the ‘loss of licence’ referred to in the question sounds harsher than a 28-day suspension, so the responses may in fact underestimate public support for this penalty.
7.17 Speeding in urban areas was also regarded as highly unacceptable. In 2015, 94 percent supported loss of licence for speeding at 90 km/h in a 50km/h zone. Eighty percent supported automatic loss of licence at 80 km/h, and 51 percent were in favour of automatic licence loss at 70 km/h in a 50 km/h zone. Again, this question was not asked in 2016.
7.18 Repeat offending. Seventy-one percent said that it would be fair or very fair for three speeding tickets in a year to result in automatic loss of licence (see Figure 12). Thirteen percent said automatic licence loss for three tickets in a year would be unfair or very unfair, and 16 percent were neutral on this issue or said they didn’t know.
7.19 Self-reported speeding infringements. Seventeen percent of male drivers and 13 percent of female drivers reported receiving at least one speeding ticket in the previous year. Not surprisingly, drivers who said they liked driving fast were more likely to have had a speeding ticket (17 percent) than those who disliked driving fast (12 percent). Seventeen percent of people who said they had driven while intoxicated had received a speeding ticket, compared to 14 percent of people who didn’t report any drink-driving.
7.20 Chance of receiving a ticket. New Zealanders expect to be caught if they speed past a speed camera (see section 8, Speed cameras), but are less convinced that they’ll be stopped if they’re passing a Police officer without a camera. In 2016, there was a significant increase in the perception that speeding past a police officer will result in a ticket.
Figure 17: Perceived chance of receiving a ticket if passing a Police officer (without a camera) at various speeds
Note: No data is available for 2012
7.21 Over 80 percent of New Zealanders believe they would be likely to receive a ticket if they drove past a Police officer in light traffic at 120 km/h. Nearly two-thirds (64 percent) would expect a ticket at 115 km/h, up from only 44 percent in 2015 (Figure 17). In contrast, most (93 percent) said they would be likely to get a ticket if they drove past a speed camera at 115 km/h (see Figure 18), which is a significant increase over the 80 percent from 3 years ago.
Figure 18: Perceived chance of receiving a ticket if driving at 115 km/h past a ...
Note: No data is available for 2012
7.22 Only 11 percent said there was a low or very low chance of receiving a ticket if they drove past a Police officer at 115 km/h, down from 21 percent in 2015.
7.23 In 2013, a question was asked about the effectiveness of roadside speed indicator devices at slowing the respondents down. Eighty-six percent said they were very or quite effective. Only 2 percent said they have no effect. This question has not been asked again.
8 Speed cameras
Figure 19: Attitudes to speed cameras (increasing trend reflects improvement in safety attitudes)
8.1 Effectiveness of speed cameras. Sixty-three percent of New Zealand adults agreed or strongly agreed with the statement ‘Using speed cameras helps lower the road toll’. Twenty-one percent said speed cameras don’t help to lower the road toll and 16 percent were neutral on this issue. There has been no net change over the last decade (Figure 19).
8.2 Cameras operated fairly. Nearly two thirds of New Zealanders (63 percent) thought that the way speed cameras are being operated is fair.
8.3 Awareness of cameras. Thirty-five percent of New Zealanders said that they often saw speed cameras on their usual roads (see Figure 19). This has been fairly static over the last decade. The percentage of people that say they often see speed cameras on their usual roads ranges from 50 percent for Wellington to only 17 percent for Southland.
8.4 Chance of receiving a ticket. Most New Zealanders (93 percent) said they would expect to get a ticket if they passed a speed camera on the open road at 115 km/h (see Figure 20). This is a significant increase over the 80 percent from 3 years ago.
Figure 20: Perceived chance of receiving a ticket if passing a speed camera at various speeds
Note: No data is available for 2012
8.5 While ninety-three percent thought they would be likely or very likely to receive a ticket if they drove past a camera at speeds of 115 km/h or higher, only 64 percent thought they would receive a ticket if they drove past a police officer without a camera at 115 km/h.
8.6 The percentage of people who think they would receive a ticket if they passed a camera at 110 km/h or 105 km/h is significantly higher than it was three years ago. At 110 km/h, 75 percent would expect to receive a ticket compared to 45 percent in 2013. At 105 km/h, 38 percent would expect to receive a ticket compared to only 15 percent in 2013.
9 General enforcement and compliance
9.1 General traffic enforcement. Thirty-six percent of New Zealanders thought that a driver who broke a traffic law (other than drink-driving or speeding) was likely to be stopped by the Police. This has increased fairly steadily up until 2010 but has been fairly steady since then (Figure 21).
Figure 21: Perceived chance of being stopped by Police if breaking a traffic law other than drink-driving or speeding
9.2 Unmarked police vehicles for traffic enforcement. Several questions about the use of unmarked vehicles (other than speed camera vehicles), to detect offending on the roads, were asked for the first time in 2004.
9.3 In 2016, 93 percent of New Zealanders were aware that Police use a fleet of unmarked vehicles to detect traffic offending. Awareness was high throughout New Zealand.
9.4 Most people thought that unmarked cars were an effective and fair road safety measure. Seventy percent of those who were aware of unmarked cars said the use of unmarked cars to detect traffic offending was ‘very effective’ or ‘quite effective’ in helping to reduce the road toll. About a quarter thought the use of unmarked cars was not very effective (23 percent) or had no effect (3 percent). (The remaining 4 percent said they didn’t know).
9.5 We asked how fair or unfair it would be for a driver to have his or her traffic offending detected by an unmarked police car. The majority (85 percent) of those who were aware of the use of unmarked cars said that this would be ‘fair’ or ‘very fair’. Only 5 percent said it would be ‘unfair’ or ‘very unfair’. Males (81 percent) are less likely than females (89 percent) to say it is fair to use unmarked police cars.
10 Safety belts and child restraints
10.1 Figures 22 and 23 show key perceptions relating to safety belts and safety belt enforcement.
Figure 22: Attitudes to safety belts (increasing trend reflects improvement in safety attitudes)
Figure 23: Attitudes to safety belts (decreasing trend reflects improvement in safety attitudes)
10.2 Effectiveness of safety belt enforcement. The majority of New Zealanders (87 percent) agreed that enforcing the use of safety belts helps to lower the road toll.
10.3 Enforcement of adult safety belt use. Forty percent of New Zealanders thought it ‘likely’ or ‘very likely’ that they would be caught if they drove without wearing a safety belt (see Figure 22).
10.4 If travelling as a front-seat passenger without a safety belt, 36 percent would expect to be stopped by Police. For rear seat passengers, 16 percent said it was likely or very likely that they would be stopped if they travelled unbelted in the rear seat.
Figure 24: Chance that an adult will be caught if not wearing a safety belt while...
10.5 Child restraint enforcement. The general perception is that child restraint use is more rigorously enforced than adult safety belt use. Fifty-seven percent said there was a high chance of being stopped if travelling with an unrestrained child in the front seat, but only 33 percent said this would be the case if the child were in the back seat (Figure 25).
Figure 25: Chance of being stopped if travelling with an unrestrained child in the...
10.6 Child restraint use by under 5s. People with children were asked how their children were restrained on the last occasion that they rode with them in the car. Ninety-seven percent of people with a child under five said that their child was in a child restraint (including infant and booster seats). Three percent said the child was in a safety belt. No respondents said their child was unrestrained.
10.7 Restraint use by children aged 5 to 9. Parents (or other household members) whose youngest child was aged between 5 and 9, were asked ‘Last time you drove with this child in the car, was the child in a child seat, booster seat, safety belt or none of these?’ For 5 to 6 year olds; 6 percent were in a safety belt, 52 percent in a booster seat or child harness and 42 percent in a child seat. For 7 to 9 year olds; 43 percent were in a safety belt, 48 percent in a booster seat or child harness, 6 percent in a child seat and 3 percent unrestrained (see Figure 26).
10.8 From late 2013, a rule change required children up to 7 years old to be restrained in an appropriate child restraint. Since then the percentage of 7-9 year olds restrained in booster and child seats has increased from just over a quarter (27 percent) to over a half (54 percent).
Figure 26: Last time you drove with this child in the car, was the child...
10.9 Penalties. A third of New Zealanders (34 percent) said that the penalties for not wearing a safety belt were not very severe even if you were caught (Figure 23).
10.10 Injury risk. Eighty-nine percent of people disagreed that the risk of being seriously injured in a crash if you are not wearing a safety belt is low. Less than 7 percent agreed.
11 Fatigue and distraction
11.1 Fatigue. Each year from 2007 to 2010, respondents were asked how strongly they agreed or disagreed with the statement ‘Driving when you are tired increases the chance you might have an accident’. In 2010, almost everyone (98 percent) agreed with the statement. Fifty-eight percent ‘strongly agreed’ and 40 percent ‘agreed’. Only 1 percent disagreed with the statement or were neutral on the issue.
11.2 In 2011, this question was replaced with a more detailed question about experience of driving when tired. ‘In the last 12 months, have you had trouble staying awake while driving… …to or from work …in the course of work …on holiday or long trips, for example a family funeral or tangi’. Funerals and tangi were given as examples as these may require unplanned long trips to a deadline.
11.3 In 2016, 27 percent indicated they had trouble staying awake while driving on holiday or long trips (‘often’, ‘occasionally’ or ‘once or twice’). The corresponding figures for to or from work and in the course of work were 14 percent and 9 percent respectively. Figure 27 shows the details.
Figure 27: In the last 12 months, have you had trouble staying awake while driving...
11.4 Male drivers (31 percent) are more likely than female drivers (23 percent) to say they had had trouble staying awake on a long trip at least once or twice in the previous 12 months.
11.5 Older drivers (19 percent of drivers over 60 years old) are less likely than other drivers (29 percent) to say they had experienced trouble staying awake on a long trip at least once or twice in the previous 12 months.
11.6 Distraction. An open ended question ‘What things do you find distracting when you are driving?’ was introduced in 2011. The table shows the top 10 distractions for 2015 compared with the previous four years. This question was not asked in 2016.
Table: Percentage of respondents that identified distractions
Distraction
Percentage of respondents
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Children (specifically)
29
28
29
30
30
People outside car
23
27
29
29
28
Passengers (adult or in general)
18
22
21
22
25
Radio/stereo/iPod
19
19
16
19
21
Other road users
24
18
16
19
19
Cell phone/RT (hand held or not specified)
13
14
14
14
15
Hands-free cell phone
9
7
10
12
15
Billboards
17
14
15
13
14
Texting/reading texts
12
10
8
10
11
Eating/drinking
1
1
1
1
8
11.7 In 2015, the top three distractions identified were children (30 percent), people outside the car (28 percent), and passengers in general (25 percent).
11.8 The in-car distractions most commonly mentioned are children (30 percent), passengers in general (28 percent), radios/stereos/iPods (21 percent), cell phones (15 percent) and hands free cell phones (15 percent).
11.9 Cell phones (including ringing cell phones and other passengers using cell phones) were mentioned by 15 percent of drivers, 11 percent mentioned texting or reading text messages and 15 percent mentioned hands-free cell phones.
11.10 Asked, in 2016, about the likelihood of getting caught using a hand-held cell phone or texting while driving, 27 percent said it was fairly or very likely, while 47 percent said it was fairly or very unlikely.
11.11 This year a new question was asked about cell phone use while driving. Drivers were asked if they had used a cell phone while driving in the last month. Cell phone use was divided into texting, hands held calls, hands free calls and navigation. If respondents asked for clarification, they were told that driving includes sitting in a queue with the engine running.
Table: Self reported cell phone use by drivers
Type of cell phone use
Percent of all drivers
Percent of drivers who thought..
Unlikely to be caught if using a cell phone
Likely to be caught if using a cell phone
Sending or reading text messages
38
41
32
Hand held phone calls
22
25
16
Hands free phone calls
39
39
38
Navigation
37
36
34
11.12 Texting. Thirty-eight percent of drivers said they had used a cell phone for sending or receiving texts while driving. Drivers who thought it was unlikely that they would be caught using a phone were more likely to have used a phone for texting than those who thought it was likely they would get caught if they used a phone; 41 percent compared to 32 percent.
11.13 Hand held phone. Twenty-two percent of drivers said they had made hand held phone calls while driving. Again, drivers who thought it was unlikely that they would be caught using a phone, were more likely to have made a call than those who thought it was likely they would get caught if they used a phone: 25 percent compared to 16 percent.
11.14 Hands free phone. Thirty-nine percent of drivers said they had made hands free phone calls while driving. Hands-free phone use while driving is not illegal. There is no significant difference in the hands-free use of phones for drivers who thought it was unlikely that they would be caught and those who thought it was likely they would get caught if they used a phone.
11.15 Navigation. Thirty-seven percent of drivers said they had used a cell phone for navigation while driving. There is no significant difference in the use of phones for navigation for drivers who thought it was unlikely that they would be caught and those who thought it was likely they would get caught if they used a phone.
12 Roading
12.1 Importance of roading improvements. Prior to 2016, respondents have been asked how important improving road engineering and design is for road safety. In 2015, over two thirds (67 percent) said that improving road engineering and design would be ‘very important’ for road safety, and a further 28 percent said it would be ‘fairly important’. Overall, 94 percent rated roading improvements as ‘very’ or ‘fairly’ important for road safety. This measure has stayed between 94 and 97 percent over the past decade (Figure 28). This question was not asked in 2016.
Figure 28: Importance of road engineering and design
Download the full document
Public attitudes to road safety survey 2016 summary report, including tables and sampling information
Download data tables
Public attitudes to road safety survey 2016 data tables
1 Answers to this and other questions may not add to 100% due to rounding and in some cases because a small number of people answered 'Don't know'.
2 Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board's Bureau of Alcohol Education, based on formula developed by National Highway Traffic Administration 1994. (Note that 1 US standard drink is approximately 1.4 NZ standard drinks). www.lcb.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/alcohol___the_law/17511/alcohol_impairment_chart/611972 accessed 28/7/10.
3 Safer Journeys, page 32
4 Since 16 January 2006; previously 50 km/h over the speed limit.
Twelve percent of New Zealanders described road travel in this country as ‘very safe’. A further 72 percent described it as ‘fairly safe’; 14 percent described it as ‘fairly unsafe’ and 2 percent as ‘very unsafe’[1]. Overall, 84 percent described road travel as ‘very safe’ or ‘fairly safe’ (see Figure 2)
[1]Answers to this and other questions may not add to 100% due to rounding and in some cases because a small number of people answered ‘Don’t know’.