Questions and answers

What are Land Transport Rules?

The NZ Transport Agency produces Land Transport Rules in collaboration with the Ministry of Transport. Rules are signed into law by the responsible Minister under the Land Transport Act 1998 (the Land Transport Act). The NZTA is a Crown Entity established on 1 August 2008 bringing together the functions of Land Transport New Zealand and Transit New Zealand to provide an integrated approach to transport planning, funding and delivery.

Rules are made in respect of a wide range of matters covered by the New Zealand Transport Strategy. These include safeguarding and improving land transport safety and security, improving access and mobility, assisting economic development, protecting and promoting public health and helping to ensure environmental sustainability.

Why is this amendment Rule being proposed?

The amendment Rule will make changes to the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 (the Rule).

What changes are proposed to the Rule?

A significant change is proposed by the amendment Rule to address road safety risks around the use of hand-held mobile phones while driving. The number of crashes associated with mobile phone use has increased steadily over the last five years.

Evidence exists that using a mobile phone while driving affects driving performance, and can substantially increase the risk of a crash, because of 'driver distraction'. One study has shown that using a mobile phone while driving can increase a driver's risk of being involved in a crash by up to four times.

Other changes are proposed to the Rule to update and clarify its provisions.

Proposed ban on the use of hand-held mobile phones while driving

What is being proposed?

It is proposed that the Rule be amended to:

• ban the use of hand-held mobile phones while driving;
• exempt the use of hands-free mobile phones and two-way radios; and
• allow genuine emergency calls to be made where it is impracticable to pull over to make a call.

What is driver distraction?

'Driver distraction' occurs when a driver's attention is diverted from the task of driving by an object, person, event or activity that is secondary or unconnected to the main task of driving. A large body of research shows in-vehicle distractions impair driving performance and safety. Driving is a complex task and requires the use and coordination of various skills - physical, cognitive and sensory. The more a driver's attention is diverted away from the task of driving, the greater is the risk of crashing. The research on driver distraction shows that risk increases as the task becomes more complex, time-consuming and frequent.

Why are mobile phones deemed a high risk driving distraction?

Using a mobile phone while driving adds to an already complex task. It involves the driver mastering several different types of physical actions and requires a high degree of cognitive attention. When used while driving, mobile phones can cause distraction by taking a driver's eyes off the road (e.g. when reading a text message), drawing their attention away from the road (e.g. when talking), and physically interfering with vehicle control (e.g. when reaching to answer the phone while steering).

Research has identified the cognitive involvement of using a mobile phone when driving as being a greater distraction than the physical actions involved.

How does using a mobile phone differ from other forms of driver distraction?

'Traditional' distractions, like talking to passengers, tuning the radio, smoking, eating etc, can be modified or reduced during dangerous or demanding traffic situations. For example, passengers are aware of the road environment and will generally let the conversation lapse during a dangerous driving situation, allowing the driver to concentrate fully on negotiating the hazard. A person on the other end of a mobile phone, however, is not aware of any potential hazards and may continue to talk, distracting the driver at critical moments.

How does using a mobile phone impact on a person's driving performance?

Distraction can impact on a driver's performance in several ways including:

• slowing reaction times;
• impairing the ability to maintain an appropriate and predictable speed and lane position;
• impairing hazard detection and response;
• impairing judgment and perception of gaps in traffic; and
• reducing general awareness of other traffic.

What research is there to back this up?

A British study¹ showed that drivers' reaction times to hazards were, on average, 50% slower when using a mobile phone than under normal driving conditions.

What is the extent of use in New Zealand?

A survey conducted in 2004² showed that approximately 65% of New Zealanders owned a mobile phone. Fifty-seven percent of those surveyed used a mobile phone while driving at least occasionally.

What other areas of concern are there around mobile-phone-related driver distraction?

As the capabilities of mobile phones continue to expand, there will be even further opportunities for drivers to be distracted. Already, mobile phones can be used to talk, read and send text messages, take photos, download and play video clips from the internet, navigate the driver to chosen destinations and perform other functions.

How great is the risk from texting while driving?

A recent study in Western Australia showed that the risk of having a crash increased fourfold when drivers used their phones to send text/SMS messages. There has been a steady rise in the number of people texting while driving, especially among young drivers. A study conducted by Telstra in Australia in 2003 concluded that one in six drivers regularly send text messages when driving. A recent study showed that drivers spent 400 percent more time with their eyes off the road when text messaging than when they were not texting.

What measures are available to reduce mobile phone-related crashes?

Legislation, enforcement and raising public awareness can all be used to help reduce crashes. A combination of all of these is likely to be the most effective option for changing driver behaviour and reducing crashes. It would also be in line with the approach taken in the best-performing road safety countries such as Australia, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom.

Why not rely on just using information and education campaigns to raise awareness about mobile phones as a cause of driving distraction?

While these campaigns will increase awareness among drivers, they are unlikely to change attitudes or behaviour to stop a driver engaging in distracting activity while driving.

International experience has shown that information and education campaigns increase awareness of a road safety problem, but that achieving widespread and lasting driver behaviour change requires legislative measures as well.

Why not leave things as they are?

Maintaining the status quo is no longer an option as mobile-phone-related crashes are increasing, and public concern about this issue is growing. Because using a mobile phone while driving is not illegal in New Zealand, there is currently no real incentive for drivers to stop the practice entirely.

What else is being done about driver distractions?

The NZ Transport Agency is looking at a number of educational initiatives to raise awareness about the wider issue of driver distraction.

What are the benefits of the proposed ban on using hand-held mobile phones when driving?

A specific ban will make enforcement easier by allowing the Police to issue infringements (instant fines and demerit points) instead of having to prove careless or inconsiderate driving charges via the Court system.

Currently, these charges are normally laid only in relation to serious crashes.

Banning the use of hand-held phones while driving will also bring New Zealand into line with the legal requirements of the best-performing road safety jurisdictions. All Australian states and at least 45 countries (including most countries in the European Union) have legislation banning the use of mobile phones while driving.

The most important benefit will be the expected decrease in crashes.

What penalties are likely for those breaching the proposed ban?

An infringement fee of $50, and 25 demerit points, is proposed as the penalty for those breaching a ban on using mobile phones while driving. These proposals are in line with recent changes to the penalty and demerit point regime for traffic offences.

What support is there for this proposal?

Consultation carried out as part of the development of the Road User Rule in 2004 showed broad support for a ban on using hand-held mobile phones while driving. More recently, there has been growing public support for a ban, and the NZ Automobile Association (76%) and Research New Zealand (86%) polls have confirmed this. Vodafone and Telecom have also recently come out in support of such a ban.

Why not ban the use of hands-free mobile phones as well?

Mobile phones are an essential business tool, particularly for tradesmen and small businesses, many of whom would be economically disadvantaged without the ability to be contacted while travelling. Mobile phones also provide safety and personal security benefits. A total ban could compromise these benefits.

What are the risks with using hands-free mobile phones?

Research shows that, although the risk of a crash is less when using a hands-free phone while driving, the risk of crashing while using a hands-free kit is still higher than when not using a phone at all. This is because the driver using a phone can be distracted by concentrating on the conversation rather than on the road. Some studies have suggested that banning hand-held mobile phone use could reinforce the mistaken belief that hands-free devices present a very low safety risk, and give a false impression that they are entirely safe to use while driving. One way of helping to dispel that perception is to ensure that educational messages emphasise the risks associated with all mobile phone use while driving.

What are the costs associated with implementing this proposal?

There will be enforcement costs associated with banning the use of hand-held mobile phones when driving. These include infringement fee processing and collection costs, and the possible cost of diverting Police enforcement away from other activities.

What costs are people likely to face?

The main expense for people who need to be able to use a phone while driving would be the purchase of hands-free kits for their vehicles. These kits cost about $39 each. The preferred alternative, however, is for drivers to choose to pull over to take calls on their mobile phone or to use a messaging option.

How much notice will motorists get of the proposed ban on hand-held mobile use while driving if it becomes law?

To raise the public's awareness of a law change, a widespread information campaign, independent of other campaigns, could be conducted when the new Rule is implemented. Overseas experience has shown that publicised enforcement is needed to achieve widespread long-term compliance.

What other proposed changes relating to road user behaviour are included in the amendment Rule?

The amendment Rule proposals also include changes relating to:

• the use of motorcycles and moped on footpaths;
• the responsibilities of riders of mobility devices, and wheeled recreational devices, at traffic signals;
• signalling requirements for cyclists at roundabouts;
• the maximum speed for mopeds;
• off-road vehicle parking;
• the correct wearing of seat belts;
• the use of lights by mopeds and motorcycles during the day;
• the use of blue beacons on vehicles;
• passenger service vehicles stopping at level crossings; and
• pedestrians at pedestrian crossings.

Also raised, as an issue for discussion, is whether buses should have priority when leaving bus stops, and comments are being sought on this issue.

What changes are proposed about the use of motor cycles and mopeds on a footpath for delivery to letter boxes?

Postal delivery people now deliver a lot more bulky items than in the past. The extra weight involved has made postal delivery by walking or cycling more difficult. In many cases, delivery people are also servicing longer postal routes. There are also safety implications involved when postal delivery people walk or cycle when delivering mail on roads with high volumes of traffic moving at high speed, and where there are inadequate facilities for walking or cycling.

Postal delivery, by mopeds or motorcycles, overcomes many of these concerns. Currently, pedestrians, riders of mobility devices and riders of wheeled recreational devices are the only legal users of footpaths.

It is proposed that an exception be made in the Rule to allow mopeds or motorcycles to be used on footpaths for delivering newspapers, mail or other printed material to letterboxes. This would be subject to the road, on which the footpath is located, having a speed limit of 70 km/h or more, or, where the speed limit is less than 70 km/h, the road controlling authority having authorised the use of a footpath for this purpose.

The driver of the moped or motorcycle used in these delivery services would have to:

• operate the vehicle in a careful and considerate manner;
• not exceed 10 km/h; and
• give way to pedestrians, mobility devices or wheeled recreational devices being used on the footpath.

A pedestrian, or a rider of a mobility device or wheeled recreational device, would not be allowed to unduly hinder a moped or motorcycle being used on the footpath for delivering newspapers, mail or other printed material to letterboxes.

What changes are being proposed regarding mobility devices and wheeled recreational devices at traffic signals?

At traffic signals, it is proposed that riders of mobility devices and wheeled recreational devices using footpaths will have the same priorities and obligations as pedestrians.

Drivers are obliged to give way to pedestrians lawfully crossing or about to cross the road from one footpath to another, and it is proposed that this provision also apply to riders of mobility devices and wheeled recreational devices.

It is proposed that other provisions that apply to pedestrians at traffic signals should also apply to riders of mobility devices and wheeled recreational devices. These include:

• on the green human symbol, pedestrians can walk across the roadway;
• while a steady yellow disc or a steady red symbol is displayed, pedestrians cannot enter the roadway until a green pedestrian signal is showing; and
• while a steady green, yellow or red arrow is displayed, pedestrians must not enter the roadway.

What changes are being proposed regarding signalling requirements for cyclists at roundabouts?

Roundabouts, particularly those that are multi-laned, can be difficult for cyclists to negotiate. This can be made more difficult if a cyclist attempts to comply with the signalling requirements set down in the current rules.

These require a cyclist, intending to turn right, to signal as they approach the roundabout and then signal from the last exit before the one they intend to use until they leave the roundabout. This is not only physically demanding, but it also, potentially, places the cyclist at greater risk of losing control in an often dangerous environment.

It is proposed to provide an exception from arm signalling for cyclists at roundabouts where signalling is not practicable.

What are the proposals in the amendment Rule relating to the maximum speed for mopeds?

It is proposed that a driver must not operate a vehicle registered as a moped at a speed in excess of 50km/h.

A moped is defined as "a motor vehicle running on 2 or 3 wheels that is fitted with a motor having a power output not exceeding 2 kW and is designed to be ridden at a speed not exceeding 50 km per hour under normal conditions of use."

A moped rider is not required to hold a motorcycle licence, largely on the basis of a moped's limited power output and speed. However, in some cases, vehicles are registered as mopeds when they are outside the definition of such a vehicle or they are subsequently modified so their power output or speed exceeds that allowed for a moped.

It is important that any mistaken classification does not lead to drivers with minimal motorcycle experience and skills driving a misclassified moped at a speed greater than that intended.

What changes are proposed regarding vehicles parking off roadways?

In many areas, parking on grass berms and other roadside cultivation damages surfaces and underground services. Parking in these areas can hinder pedestrians and mobility device users from accessing roads and footpaths. There are also safety risks if vehicles are parked in places with limited visibility, such as bends.

The Rule currently says "A driver must not drive a motor vehicle on a lawn, garden or other cultivation that is adjacent to, or forms part of, a road". This creates a 'moving' offence. Parking enforcement officers, however, do not have the authority to enforce 'moving' offences. The proposed change would enable them to do so.

It is proposed to amend the Rule by prohibiting, within urban traffic areas (ie, areas subject to a speed limit of 50 km/h), parking on grassed areas or other cultivation forming part of a road, unless a road controlling authority indicates otherwise by signs or markings. The proposal would put in place nationally-defined uniform requirements for road users (which could be varied in specific cases by signs and markings). This would address the concerns, of road controlling authorities, about the cost of installing and maintaining signs and markings and also avoid the visual impact of unnecessary signs.

What is being proposed about wearing seat belts correctly?

The Rule currently requires children between 8 and 15 years and people over 15 to wear the seat belt and ensure it is securely fastened.

Police have been concerned about the number of people they have observed not wearing their seat belt properly, although the seat belt has been securely fastened. The placement of the seatbelt in these cases has often not provided any protection for the occupant and may have exposed them to greater risk of injury in a crash.

It is proposed that the Rule be amended to ensure seat belts are worn correctly and the user is properly restrained and keeps the belt securely fastened.

What is being proposed regarding motor cycles and mopeds using their lights during daylight hours?

It is proposed to amend the Rule to require mopeds and motorcycles riders to switch-on their headlamps or, if fitted, daytime running lamps, during daylight hours.

Motorcycle casualties (fatalities plus serious and minor injuries) have increased by almost 80 percent since 2001. While some of the growth in casualties might have been expected as a result of the 28 percent increase in motorcycles being licensed over the same period (refer figure 1 in overview), it is of concern because the increase is so large. Furthermore, the cost of fuel has risen, and is likely to remain high, so motorcycle ownership and use is likely to increase further. It is important that best-practice motorcycle safety initiatives are put in place to deal with this growing road safety problem.

What is the proposal to extend the legal use of blue beacons on vehicles?

It is proposed that certain officers, with statutory power to stop drivers, be allowed to have blue beacons installed on vehicles they use in their official duties. This change would apply specifically to customs officers, fisheries officers and marine reserve officers.

Currently, the law does not allow some officials, who have statutory powers to stop drivers (such as fisheries officers), to install and operate beacons on their vehicles. This hampers the ability of these enforcement officials to signal drivers to pull over.

Displaying a blue beacon would provide a clear signal that the enforcement official had the power to require a driver to stop a vehicle.

What changes are being proposed regarding rules requiring passenger service vehicles to stop at level crossings?

It is proposed to amend the current requirement for passenger service vehicles (other than taxis) to stop before every level crossing, to exclude, from that requirement, level crossings where red or flashing red signals have been installed.

The Rule currently requires school buses and vehicles (other than taxis) being used for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward to stop before every level crossing. Incidents are regularly reported of motorists taking unsafe, evasive action to avoid a bus that has stopped, or is about to stop, in compliance with existing requirements. As a result, many bus drivers are reluctant to stop in advance of level crossings, particularly those crossings equipped with flashing signals. The level of compliance, particularly in open-road areas, is not good.

Flashing red signals generally have a very high level of reliability, and it is considered appropriate that the exception to stopping be extended to level crossings equipped with flashing signals.

Level crossings without flashing signals have either a Stop sign or Give-Way sign installed. When a Stop sign is installed all vehicles are required to stop. At sites with Give-Way signs, there is a considerable variation in vehicle volume, speed, grades, road surface conditions and view lines available for motorists approaching the level crossing. The level of risk associated with a train/bus collision at those crossings will also vary, but is considered sufficiently high to retain the requirement to stop.

What changes are being proposed regarding pedestrians waiting to cross a pedestrian crossing?

It is proposed to amend the Rule to require drivers to give way to pedestrians who are obviously waiting to cross at a pedestrian crossing.

Several submissions on the public consultation draft of the Rule in 2003 suggested that drivers should be required to stop for pedestrians waiting to cross at pedestrian crossings, and that there should be a requirement to restrict pedestrians from loitering near pedestrian crossings. It was stated that these pedestrians often did not give a clear indication to motorists whether they were going to use the crossing or not.

The proposal requiring drivers to give way to pedestrians who are obviously waiting to cross at a pedestrian crossing would give more priority to pedestrians. It would also bring New Zealand into line with other jurisdictions including Australian states, the United Kingdom and a number of other European countries.

What is the suggestion relating to giving priority for buses when they signal that they are leaving a stop?

It has been suggested that, when a bus driver signals to pull away from a stop, other drivers should be required to give priority to the bus when they can do so safely.

There is an increasing need to provide effective public transport. One of the most critical elements in doing so is to improve service reliability. Waiting for suitable gaps to allow a bus to enter the traffic stream can lead to considerable delays to bus services.

Many drivers do make way for buses to enter the stream, but on many critical routes this courtesy cannot be relied on.

The idea of providing for buses to be given priority needs to be balanced against the safety of other motorists and cyclists. The suggestion to give buses some priority has raised concerns in relation to cyclists where bus drivers might be more likely to pull out in front of an approaching cyclist assuming a right of way. It would be essential the bus driver be required to signal and not assume absolute priority to the bus.

Consultation details

Where can I get printed versions of the proposed amendment Rule?

A printed copy of the draft Rule and overview may be obtained by calling the NZ Transport Agency Contact Centre on Freephone 0800 699 000.

Does the draft amendment Rule give me all the information I need to fully understand what is proposed?

Because this is an amendment Rule, it contains only the proposed amendment provisions. However, the accompanying overview provides information about why the amendments are required.

How can I see how the proposed change will fit into the Road User Rule?

The material on the website links the proposed amendments with the Rule on the website. This is intended to help put the proposed changes into context.

Where can I get copies of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004?

Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 (which was developed by the former Land Transport NZ and drafted by the Parliamentary Counsel Office) is available from bookshops that sell legislation or direct from the printers, Legislation Direct (telephone (04) 568 0005). It is also on this website.

Copies of other final Land Transport Rules can be found on the website. Printed (bound) copies of Land Transport Rules can be purchased from selected bookshops throughout New Zealand that sell legislation, or from the Rule printers and distributors, Wickliffe Ltd, telephone (06) 358 8231. Rules may also be inspected at NZ Transport Agency regional offices.

When do I need to have my submission in by?

Submissions close on Thursday 16 October 2008.

What will happen after public consultation?

Following completion of the public consultation phase, the draft amendment Rule will be submitted to the Ministry of Transport for government scrutiny. The final draft of the Rule will then go to Cabinet for noting, and, finally, will be submitted for signature by the Minister for Transport Safety.

What is the statutory basis of the Rule?

The Land Transport Act 1998 provides for the Minister of Transport to make land transport Rules concerning road user behaviour, including the setting of standards and requirements concerning the conduct of drivers, pedestrians and other road users; and regulating traffic of all classes, and prohibiting traffic or a class of traffic on a specified road or class of road.

When would the Rule come into force?

Subject to government approval, it is proposed that the Rule will come into force in 2009.

Where can interested parties get more information?

Further information about the proposed amendments is available from the NZ Transport Agency Contact Centre, freephone 0800 699 000.

Last updated: 4 September 2008