Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.


View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | ... | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 
IT Professional
1703 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 166

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1387289 14-Sep-2015 16:04
Send private message

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.

Fully Operational
3267 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1063

Trusted
Vocus
Subscriber

  Reply # 1387296 14-Sep-2015 16:27
Send private message

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.

 
 
 
 


468 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 8


  Reply # 1387320 14-Sep-2015 17:24
One person supports this post
Send private message

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.

2605 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1090


  Reply # 1387386 14-Sep-2015 18:51
One person supports this post
Send private message

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.     




Always be yourself, unless you can be Batman, then always be the Batman



153 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 32


  Reply # 1387472 14-Sep-2015 20:29
One person supports this post
Send private message

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.

153 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 32


  Reply # 1387480 14-Sep-2015 20:36
Send private message

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!

9039 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2627

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1387518 14-Sep-2015 21:43
One person supports this post
Send private message

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. frown

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.





209 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 19


  Reply # 1388504 16-Sep-2015 13:30
Send private message

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 | ... | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic



Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:





News »

Red Hat unveils production-ready open source hyperconverged infrastructure
Posted 23-Jun-2017 22:10


Whatever ailed Vodafone broadband … seems to be fixed
Posted 23-Jun-2017 14:10


VMware NSX Meets Stringent Government Security Standards with Common Criteria Certification
Posted 22-Jun-2017 19:05


Brother launches next-generation colour laser printers and all-in- ones for business
Posted 22-Jun-2017 18:56


Intel and IOC announce partnership
Posted 22-Jun-2017 18:50


Samsung Galaxy Tab S3: Best Android tablet
Posted 21-Jun-2017 12:05


Wellington-based company helping secure Microsoft browsers
Posted 20-Jun-2017 20:51


Endace delivers high performance with new 1/10/40 Gbps packet capture card
Posted 20-Jun-2017 20:50


You can now integrate SMX security into Microsoft Office 365, Google and other cloud email platforms
Posted 20-Jun-2017 20:47


Ravensdown launches new decision-making tool HawkEye
Posted 19-Jun-2017 15:38


Spark planning to take on direct management of all consumer stores
Posted 19-Jun-2017 10:03


Qrious acquires Ubiquity
Posted 14-Jun-2017 12:21


Spark New Zealand prepares for 5G with Nokia
Posted 14-Jun-2017 12:16


The future-proof 10.5-inch iPad Pro
Posted 13-Jun-2017 18:16


Mandatory data breach reporting in Australia
Posted 13-Jun-2017 11:30



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.