New bike buffer zone law.

Forums › Transport (cars, bikes and boats) › New bike buffer zone law.

1 | ... | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13

keewee01

1743 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 204

Trusted

#1387289 14-Sep-2015 16:04

GregV:
keewee01: There really does need to be more effort put into safe cycleways, and maybe there should be an element of user pays in that by way of a cyclist registration fee?
Let's consider the HUGE network of safe, separated infrastructure that pedestrians have today. They have a separated (usually raised) set of pathways to take them where they need to go, with control at intersections. All of this has been supplied without any form of registration system, or user pays for pedestrians. These users already pay via rates, and so it should be with any cycleways.

Can you actually expain WHY it should be the case with cycleways also? Most suburban streets in New Zealand are probably perfectly fine for dual use, the problems arise on main roads and narrow streets or which the former have now become so busy with motorvehicles and less safe for cyclists.

You are using pedestrians as a justification for why cyclist shouldn't pay their own way. Motorist could use the same arguement - pedestrian footpaths are paid for from rates - why shouldn't all main roads/highways, and trucks do most damage to roads - so make them pay! (Devils Advocate) If you are paying rates / rental then you are contributing towards local streets (or your landlord is). There needs to be better roads to accomodate all users, or special cycleways where this is not practicle.

And where the biggest high speed areas are (national highways) there are not footpaths, so how about something of substance please to expain why cyclist shouldn't have to contribute when it comes to the bigger picture. Cyclists already don't have to pay ACC, etc.

ubergeeknz

3344 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1041

Trusted

Vocus

#1387296 14-Sep-2015 16:27

keewee01: You are using pedestrians as a justification for why cyclist shouldn't pay their own way. Motorist could use the same arguement - pedestrian footpaths are paid for from rates - why shouldn't all main roads/highways, and trucks do most damage to roads - so make them pay!

They do. This is why we have RUC.

(Devils Advocate) If you are paying rates / rental then you are contributing towards local streets (or your landlord is). There needs to be better roads to accomodate all users, or special cycleways where this is not practicle.

Correct.

And where the biggest high speed areas are (national highways) there are not footpaths, so how about something of substance please to expain why cyclist shouldn't have to contribute when it comes to the bigger picture. Cyclists already don't have to pay ACC, etc.

Of course they pay ACC, everyone with an income pays ACC. They just pay less than the operators of motor vehicles, since they cost less (on average) to service.

Teeps

501 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 26

#1387320 14-Sep-2015 17:24

keewee01:
To me it seems that the overwhelming opinion of cyclists on here is that they should not have to contribute. And I don't understand why.

I think you'll find I contribute a fairly healthy amount for vehicle licensing already, as I'm sure most cyclists do too.

My partner and I have no children, we have one car, two motorcycles and four bicycles between us. We can only use a maximum of two of those vehicles at a time, and when we are both in the car naturally we are only using one. We pay nearly $1300 a year for the 3 motorised vehicles but enjoy to cycle and will ride to work on our bicycles as much as possible. Your suggestion would mean that we would then be paying vehicle licensing for a further 4 vehicles (two bicycles each) when, as I said earlier we can only use a maximum of one each at a time. And you think that fair?

To use my bicycle instead of my car or motorbike is already meaning I am contributing more pro rata than someone that uses their car all the time as I am putting less strain on the infrastructure and minimal wear and tear on the roads but still pay our full license fees, and I have not complained about that!

Yes, I agree that it would be a lot better to have separate cycle lanes which would make it a lot safer to cycle, and would mean that bikes would not be on the road. This would possibly mean more people would start to cycle and then free up congestion on the roads which would mean the vehicle licensing fee had gone directly to improving the driving conditions for motorised vehicle owners.

scuwp

3927 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2510

#1387386 14-Sep-2015 18:51

Teeps:
keewee01:
To me it seems that the overwhelming opinion of cyclists on here is that they should not have to contribute. And I don't understand why.

I think you'll find I contribute a fairly healthy amount for vehicle licensing already, as I'm sure most cyclists do too.

My partner and I have no children, we have one car, two motorcycles and four bicycles between us. We can only use a maximum of two of those vehicles at a time, and when we are both in the car naturally we are only using one. We pay nearly $1300 a year for the 3 motorised vehicles but enjoy to cycle and will ride to work on our bicycles as much as possible. Your suggestion would mean that we would then be paying vehicle licensing for a further 4 vehicles (two bicycles each) when, as I said earlier we can only use a maximum of one each at a time. And you think that fair?

To use my bicycle instead of my car or motorbike is already meaning I am contributing more pro rata than someone that uses their car all the time as I am putting less strain on the infrastructure and minimal wear and tear on the roads but still pay our full license fees, and I have not complained about that!

Yes, I agree that it would be a lot better to have separate cycle lanes which would make it a lot safer to cycle, and would mean that bikes would not be on the road. This would possibly mean more people would start to cycle and then free up congestion on the roads which would mean the vehicle licensing fee had gone directly to improving the driving conditions for motorised vehicle owners.

Added to this, most local roads, cycleways, footpaths etc are either part or fully funded by ratepayers. Most adult cyclists would be either direct or indirect ratepayers so contribute that way as well.

Lazy is such an ugly word, I prefer to call it selective participation

TonyR1973

199 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 53

#1387472 14-Sep-2015 20:29

ubergeeknz:
keewee01:Cyclists already don't have to pay ACC, etc.

Of course they pay ACC, everyone with an income pays ACC. They just pay less than the operators of motor vehicles, since they cost less (on average) to service.

They don't specifically pay into the road account, for that use, which is intended to cover all road injuries. And it doesn't matter if they also have a car - people with more than two motor vehicles pay separate ACC levies for each one.

TonyR1973

199 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 53

#1387480 14-Sep-2015 20:36

mdooher:
TonyR1973:
MikeAqua: I can think of several steep sections of highway I regularly drive that have yellow lines, and are not wide enough to legally pass a cyclist with a 1.5m gap. On those roads, there will technically be no legal way to pass a cyclist, because you can't cross no passing lines.

The no passing restriction only applies if you're passing a MOVING motorvehicle or animal-drawn vehicle. It doesn't apply to passing obstructions such as bipsycholists or vehicles that are stopped, standing or parked.

Yes, It amazes me the number of people who are clearly ignorant of this rule.

And then there's the ones that don't realise that the yellow line that's not on your side means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to you. I've actually had people flashing their headlights and tooting their horns as I overtook them when the line on my side was broken white!

Samsung

Shop now on Samsung phones, tablets, TVs and more (affiliate link).

Geektastic

18010 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8468

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1387518 14-Sep-2015 21:43

keewee01:
Teeps:
keewee01:
I agree, it really does come down the existing roadway designs and any new roads or upgrades taking into account more than just cars/trucks as the users of those roads.

There are a number of roads around the area of Lower Hutt that I live where it would be impossible to legally and/of safely pass for various reasons. One in particular is a 70km/hr section of road that for several hundred meters has a barrier in the centre of the road, single lane either side. It would be impossible to pass with a 1m gap, let alone a 1.5m gap. So maybe there are roads, which until modified, should be classified as "No Cyclists" for safety reasons.

There really does need to be more effort put into safe cycleways, and maybe there should be an element of user pays in that by way of a cyclist registration fee?

You make it sound like the speed limit for this road has been rated too highly and should be reduced as if it really is as narrow that a car would not be able to safely pass a moving object such as a bicycle, which of course would mean that an articulated lorry or even a bus would have no chance of using this road without anything to overtake!

Please don't get me wrong, I am in favour of having alternate roads for bicycles as it is very often quite scary travelling on roads with vehicles that have no idea of how to drive safely and give other roads users room. But from your description these 'cycle roads' would be more for the benefit of motorised vehicle drivers than they would be cyclists so naturally there would be no need for them to be paid by a cyclist registration fee!

Yep, the road is that narrow, and has very little seal on the outside of the white line along the edge too.

There is actually a raised cycleway/walkway (and it is designated as such) on one side of the road, but I have only ever seen 2 cyclists using it - the rest of the time they unfortunately use the road. So the road speed isn't rated too highly in reality. There is a bridge at one point on the road where it really narrows, and a small walking bridge beside it was replaced with a wider pedestrian/cyclist bridge... can you guess which one I see most cyclists use? That's not to say there aren't a lot of cyclists who do use the cyclist/pedestrian bridge, but at peak hour when I use this busy piece of road I have only once seen a cyclist use that bridge. Every other cyclist uses the road bridge.

The benefit works both ways as cyclists want a safe route/network to use - main roads have been primarily designed for motorised vehicles, with no real thought being given to cyclists - so either roadways need to be upgraded or alternative paths put in and cyclists must use those. Otherwise the work that is being done, and the money that is being spent is for nought.

To me it seems that the overwhelming opinion of cyclists on here is that they should not have to contribute. And I don't understand why.

NZ is certainly not really 'up there' in world terms for places we might want to compare ourselves to when you look in terms of provision of transport infrastructure of most kinds. Major tourist routes on the South Island (which form part of the national cycle trail) still have one lane bridges, for some reason, despite being heavily used by tourist traffic of all kinds in addition to 'home' traffic.

As far as cyclists paying, it should be easy enough to have a rego. If you have a car, perhaps you get one cycle rego free as part of the car rego. Kids under 18 don't require them and for adults with no car, perhaps $50 a year or something.

OTOH whilst it solves the 'not paying directly' complaint, it creates a whole pile of bureaucracy to administer and collect. Not as bad as having a whole health service staff and WINZ staff AND then a whole ACC staff to do pretty much the same jobs as those two just for differently caused problems, but still.

groynk

234 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 19

#1388504 16-Sep-2015 13:30

MikeAqua: My concern is that many roads were not designed with the new rule in mind.

I can think of several steep sections of highway I regularly drive that have yellow lines, and are not wide enough to legally pass a cyclist with a 1.5m gap. On those roads, there will technically be no legal way to pass a cyclist, because you can't cross no passing lines.

Likewise there are urban roads that will have inadequate passing room within the laes and heavy congestion in both directions, meaning no opportunity for anyone to cross the center line to pass cyclists.

In either of the above situations the presence of cyclists, rather than reducing congestion, may actually create congestion.

Some serious thinking about appropriate infrastructure and future road design is needed.

This law would not change the number of cyclists already creating congestion on those roads today.

1 | ... | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13