Senecio:

 

SteveXNZ:

 

.... I truly feel sorry for Aucklanders - if you think gridlock is bad now, it'll be much worse in a couple of years under the current policy.

 

 

Here's an interesting piece of information. I work in East Tamaki and both myself and a work colleague live in different West Auckland suburbs. We both left the office yesterday at the same time, he on his bike and me in my car. My commute yesterday leaving at 5pm was ~75mins. It wasn't until I was 25mins from home I that finally overtook him. That means that we both covered roughly 20kms in 50mins.

 

Things will be much better when the office moves to Penrose!

as a cyclist, I hate drivers.

also... as a driver, I hate cyclists.

Always a contentious topic. Over the space of my life I've gone from being a very active cyclist to someone who would quite happily purchase a license should Fish and Game ever start issuing permits for cyclists. When I was a kid, it was drummed into me that when riding my bike, it was my responsibility to get the hell out of the way of anything which could kill me. That seems to be a worldview lacking in modern cycle advocates. 

Here's some of my thoughts on the matter:

• I find cyclists a little bit like vegans, they'll always let you know how morally superior they think they are because of being one.
• I don't care about the alleged environmental or health benefits of cycling. If you want to save the planet or be super active, cool, be my guest, don't expect me to help pay for it and if it starts to interfere with the status quo of "Car is king" then we're going to have words.
• I am frustrated by the attitudes of cyclists who think they have the same right to be on the road as vehicles while travelling at much slower speeds or riding 2 or more abreast and holding up people. I know this isn't all cyclists, but it's not a few outliers either.
• I am frustrated that cyclists do not contribute financially to the costs of general road infrastructure, nevermind the cost of things like dedicated cycle lanes, other than by being general taxpayers. Cycle advocates love to scream "we pay taxes too" but other road users pay MORE taxes than you, because they pay general taxes as well as fuel/mileage taxes, registration, licensing etc. 
• I am frustrated that cyclists do not pay ACC levies commensurate with the risk of injury like other groups do (e.g motorcycle ACC levies)
• I am frustrated that cyclists are one of the only (if not THE only) group of road users who are not licensed, and cycles not registered/vinned. I believe the ability to ride a cycle on the road should require a license, and every cycle should be subject to the registration and WOF regimes that other vehicles are. It ensures that people are suitable to be on the roads, provides legal accountability, and more importantly provides a revenue stream so that all cycle related works such as cycleways can be fully funded by those who use them. I've widely heard the counter argument that this would be costly, but honestly, I'm 100% fine with riding a bicycle being a luxury that most can't afford. If it's good enough for motorcycles, it's good enough for cycles. 
• I am frustrated with my perception that cyclist safety is widely considered more important than the convenience of other road users. Whilst I'm tempted to say getting people from A to B as quickly as possible should be our transport planners #1 priority, the reality is that it should be transporting freight. Followed a close second by transporting people from A to B as quickly as possible.

PS: I'm joking about paying for a Fish & Game License.. I'd never pay :-P

MikeB4:

 

Eva888:

 

 

 

No that’s wrong, cycles were not mentioned. I said council decided to widen the footpath for pedestrians based on one event where they deemed there was not enough room for the crowds. Not for a cycleway.

 

 

Come on, you know and I know what you were referring to in that post. You literally mentioned cycle in that post. I will leave it at that.

 

Here’s the copy paste of that post. The second paragraph was responding to your inference of cycle phobia.

*Short Rant. That the Mayor in Welli groin ( I have purposely left what Wellington is constantly changed to by spellcheck) is getting rid of carparks in Cuba Street to widen the footpath because they just realised that once a year when the Cuba St festival is on there’s not enough room on the footpath for the crowds. Just fix the pipes first please. 

No cycle phobia here, just common sense and practicalities that aren’t aligned to left or right leanings but rather to the desire for inclusiveness of the older generation and disabled in city planning for parking and transport to support independence.*

As a driver, I dont have issues with cyclists. much. I do have an issue with cycleways being constructed resulting in narrower lanes for motor vechicles and cyclists then riding on the road because the cycleways are poorly made.

As a pedestrian, I have an issue with cyclists that ride thru red lights when I am crossing the road.

All of this was a huge issue after Covid lockdowns but seems to have settled down now.

johno1234:

 

I like cycling and generally get in at least one or two trail tours a year. I would never entertain cycling as a general transport option though. It is completely impractical and quite unsafe. Can't carry a useful amount of shopping or other goods. Slight bump from a bus, truck or car, or pothole, or gust of wind and you could be seriously injured or killed. Takes too long. Auckland is too hilly. Wind makes it unpleasant. Buses and trucks pass frighteningly close. Don't need to arrive at work wet or sweaty and need to change.

 

Removing car lanes to make cycleways has a massive effect on vehicle traffic flow - the waterfront route into the Auckland CBD being a classic disaster case where it was reduced to a single lane. The end result is severe congestion - but you get to see the occasional cyclist passing along the cycleway. 

 

Mildly mention one negative thing about cycling and boy, get ready for quite a bit of hyperbole, outrage, name calling and abuse. 

 

Have you been to any places where cycling is the norm, like Holland? It is certainly neither impractical nor unsafe there. Most people, mainly mothers, carry all their shopping and other goods and even children without problem. Few if any get killed by buses, trucks, cars, potholes or gusts of wind, which can be ferocious there. Generally, any distance in town can be covered faster by bike than by car. Wind is a bigger issue there than here yet somehow people manage. People rarely get clipped by passing buses and trucks and don't usually need to change clothes when they get to work.

The only objection you raise that might have some merit is the hilliness in Auckland and elsewhere, but I have a hard time believing that is much of an issue, especially for someone like you who enjoys trail biking. It also depends on the route and the bike.

 
What you actually said that set me off was this: "Why would cyclists, who can be rather slow to pull away and usually slower than cars, get priority anyway? The roads are paid for out of fuel taxes and RUC charges, not lycra clad cycling warriors."

These are cliché anti-cyclist stereotype claims hauled out every time some motor maniac feels a need to dump on cyclists. They are also untrue and incorrect and like all alt-right propaganda, misused to scapegoat and create false impressions. That really annoys me.

Certainly there are legitimate criticisms that can be levelled at cyclists, but this is just mindless bashing of something you disapprove of, probably for the wrong reasons. To be specific, most cyclists are no slower getting away from the light in urban traffic than most drivers, unless someone is engaged in a green light race. Even if cyclists are slower, it is a matter of seconds at most. What is the big hurry? Also, bicycles are generally faster in town than cars. Of course this depends on specific situations, but in general it is true. Again, even when it is not, the difference is usually slight. They get priority because if you let cars go first, they would never let the cyclists in. Roads mainly exist to serve cars, and fuel taxes and road user charges are necessary because of construction costs and the wear and damage done by cars. There is no reason to charge cyclists because they do not contribute to this damage. Sure, they benefit from the roads but the roads never would have been built just for cycling convenience. They are there for the motor traffic. Trying to use this against cyclists is incorrect and dishonest.

And why make an issue of what they wear? That is just a cheap shot to try to make them seem ridiculous and unworthy of equal treatment. And (speaking of name-calling) most don’t wear lycra anyway and they certainly aren’t warriors.

 
If you want to have a serious discussion about commuter cyclists, I am happy to treat that seriously. If you just want to parrot stupid stereotypes, I will also respond in kind.

Don't bother trying to lecture me.  You have been making triggered, hyperbolic, aggressive, personal, name-calling posts in these threads and are in absolutely no position to do tell anyone anything about serious discussions. 

Rikkitic:

 

Have you been to any places where cycling is the norm, like Holland? It is certainly neither impractical nor unsafe there. Most people, mainly mothers, carry all their shopping and other goods and even children without problem. Few if any get killed by buses, trucks, cars, potholes or gusts of wind, which can be ferocious there. Generally, any distance in town can be covered faster by bike than by car. Wind is a bigger issue there than here yet somehow people manage. People rarely get clipped by passing buses and trucks and don't usually need to change clothes when they get to work.

 

Yes, I've visited Amsterdam and from my recollection it's as you describe - family, mothers, professionals. Very different from New Zealand where it seems to be a majority of self-entitled lycra-wearing cyclists that think they own the roads. More than once I had someone like that not stopping on a red traffic light or pedestrian crossing.

I don't agree with Wellington's removal of parking spots. I can't cycle. I had three surgeries on my spinal cord to remove a tumour. I simply cannot cycle. I am luckly I can walk and try to walk everywhere. But I still need to get to the CBD and public transport is a joke as it is.

johno1234:

 

Don't bother trying to lecture me.  You have been making triggered, hyperbolic, aggressive, personal, name-calling posts in these threads and are in absolutely no position to do tell anyone anything about serious discussions. 

 

I'm not trying to lecture you. I'm just offering to have a serious discussion. If you aren't interested that's up to you.

@Lias One of my biggest frustrations is driving next to parents on bikes with babies and toddlers perched dangerously on home made wooden seats and wearing a useless strap on toy helmet as they weave through traffic. It's totally dangerous and should not be allowed. One knock and that kid will go flying through the air and become strawberry jam or maimed for life. 

If I have a baby or child inside my car the law requires it to be in a prescribed car seat correctly fastened to the car. These toddlers on parent's bikes are not at all protected by the law and I despair at the parents that think it’s ok to place them in such danger.

One I see often has the two babies in a sidecar attached to the bike. The sidecar is a foot off the ground so when you drive by you see the cycle ar eye level but not the sidecar. How can this be allowed? 

freitasm:

 

Rikkitic:

 

Have you been to any places where cycling is the norm, like Holland? It is certainly neither impractical nor unsafe there. Most people, mainly mothers, carry all their shopping and other goods and even children without problem. Few if any get killed by buses, trucks, cars, potholes or gusts of wind, which can be ferocious there. Generally, any distance in town can be covered faster by bike than by car. Wind is a bigger issue there than here yet somehow people manage. People rarely get clipped by passing buses and trucks and don't usually need to change clothes when they get to work.

 

 

Yes, I've visited Amsterdam and from my recollection it's as you describe - family, mothers, professionals. Very different from New Zealand where it seems to be a majority of self-entitled lycra-wearing cyclists that think they own the roads. More than once I had someone like that not stopping on a red traffic light or pedestrian crossing.

 

I don't agree with Wellington's removal of parking spots. I can't cycle. I had three surgeries on my spinal cord to remove a tumour. I simply cannot cycle. I am luckly I can walk and try to walk everywhere. But I still need to get to the CBD and public transport is a joke as it is.

 

And Amsterdam is one of the flattest cities in the world whereas Wellington and Auckland like much of NZ are built among volcanoes and mountains. Anyone who backs up a viewpoint about cycling in NZ by referring to Amsterdam is as sensible as someone pointing to Switzerland in argument for coastal shipping or the Maldives for rail transport.

freitasm:

 

Yes, I've visited Amsterdam and from my recollection it's as you describe - family, mothers, professionals. Very different from New Zealand where it seems to be a majority of self-entitled lycra-wearing cyclists that think they own the roads. 

 

I don't agree with Wellington's removal of parking spots. I can't cycle. I had three surgeries on my spinal cord to remove a tumour. I simply cannot cycle. I am luckly I can walk and try to walk everywhere. But I still need to get to the CBD and public transport is a joke as it is.

 

I haven't had the cycle experience here that you describe. Maybe it is localised. 

I agree regarding public transport. The only reason I still drive is because there isn't any where I live, and I am very much concerned what I will do if I ever fail the driving license physical. 

I can't speak about Wellington specifics as I don't live there and rarely visit. I do note that some complaints related to official policies get blamed on cyclists but the responsibility actually lies elsewhere. Dumb political decisions are just dumb decisions, whether they attempt to serve the interests of cyclists or not. Likewise, dickheads are dickheads, regardless of what they wear or how they travel. 

Eva888:

 

@Lias One of my biggest frustrations is driving next to parents on bikes with babies and toddlers perched dangerously on home made wooden seats and wearing a useless strap on toy helmet as they weave through traffic. It's totally dangerous and should not be allowed. One knock and that kid will go flying through the air and become strawberry jam or maimed for life. 

 

If I have a baby or child inside my car the law requires it to be in a prescribed car seat correctly fastened to the car. These toddlers on parent's bikes are not at all protected by the law and I despair at the parents that think it’s ok to place them in such danger.

 

One I see often has the two babies in a sidecar attached to the bike. The sidecar is a foot off the ground so when you drive by you see the cycle ar eye level but not the sidecar. How can this be allowed? 

 

I'd never thought of that, that's a really good point.

johno1234:

 

And Amsterdam is one of the flattest cities in the world whereas Wellington and Auckland like much of NZ are built among volcanoes and mountains. Anyone who backs up a viewpoint about cycling in NZ by referring to Amsterdam is as sensible as someone pointing to Switzerland in argument for coastal shipping or the Maldives for rail transport.

 

Amsterdam happens to be the place I know. So I put your point to ChatGPT. Here is the reply:

Yes, there are many places around the world that are more mountainous and hilly than the Netherlands where cycling is still a common mode of transportation. Some examples include:

Switzerland: Switzerland is known for its picturesque mountain landscapes, with many cities and towns nestled in valleys surrounded by steep terrain. Despite the mountainous terrain, cycling is popular in Switzerland, with well-developed infrastructure and a strong cycling culture.

Denmark: While Denmark is generally flat like the Netherlands, it does have some hilly regions, particularly in the central and eastern parts of the country. Cycling is extremely popular in Denmark, with a high percentage of people commuting by bike even in hilly areas.

Austria: Austria is home to the Alps, one of the most mountainous regions in Europe. Despite the challenging terrain, cycling is still a popular activity and mode of transportation in many Austrian cities and towns.

Japan: Japan has mountainous terrain throughout much of the country, yet cycling is widespread, especially in urban areas. Cities like Tokyo and Kyoto have extensive cycling infrastructure, and bicycles are commonly used for commuting and running errands.

San Francisco, USA: San Francisco is famous for its steep hills, yet cycling is a popular mode of transportation in the city. While some areas may be challenging to navigate by bike due to the steep inclines, the city has made efforts to improve cycling infrastructure and promote cycling as a sustainable transportation option.

In these places and others, factors such as infrastructure, cultural attitudes towards cycling, and the availability of alternative transportation options all contribute to the popularity of cycling despite mountainous or hilly terrain.