Already halfway through February, but welcome to another Friday! Some exciting news this week in Auckland.
This week in Greater Auckland
- On Monday Matt took an in-depth look into Auckland’s 2024 bus ridership numbers.
- On Wednesday Matt highlighted a few points on Thursday’s Transport, Resilience and Infrastructure Committee at Auckland Council.
- On Thursday we had a guest post by George Weeks reviewing ‘How to Fly a Horse’ by Kevin Ashton.
This post, like all our work, is brought to you by the Greater Auckland crew and made possible by generous donations from our readers and fans. If you’d like to support our work, you can join our circle of supporters here, or support us on Substack!
First (test) train successfully ran through City Rail Link
In exciting news, the CRL ran the first test train through the 3.45km tunnel between Waitematā (Britomart) Station and Maungawhau Station.
Hopefully the rest of the testing goes well, and we see CRL open next year. We can all thank former Mayor of Auckland Len Brown for getting this across the line through his tireless effort, and the CRL team hard at work building it. We’re seeing the light at the end of the tunnel now!
Check out the video from CRL here:
What we want from our cities
A great piece of local research on what people want from our cities.
Urban planning has a long history of promoting visionary ideas that advocate for particular futures. The most recent is the concept of the 15-minute city, which has gained traction globally.
But empirical evidence on public preference for what people want is surprisingly thin on the ground.
To help address this gap, we conducted a national survey (1,491 responses) in Aotearoa New Zealand to find out what amenities people want to have easy access to, how much time they prefer to spend getting there, and how this differs between different groups in the population.
…..
However, when we asked what amenities people prefer the most, two things came out far above others: local nature and local shops.
This finding is important as it allows cash-strapped local authorities to prioritise and sequence spending. It also supports the agenda of those who are advocating for an increase in urban green space or local living.
Planning for and encouraging amenities like local shops and services seem to be something almost completely forgotten about by our planners resulting where you need to drive just to get to get a bottle of milk.
Researchers also looked at travel times
We also asked people for their preferred maximum travel time to their most preferred amenity for a one-way trip, using different modes. Nationally, the data were consistent, identifying around 20 minutes as a good rule of thumb for maximum preferred travel time.
Importantly, this time was broadly similar regardless of the transport mode chosen. Whether walking, cycling or travelling by micro-mobility modes such as e-scooters, people wanted to spend no more than 20 minutes doing so – even though the distances vary.
This evidence has a wider resonance.
First, it strongly reinforces the 15-minute city or 20-minute neighbourhood as accurately reflecting public preferences for travel time to reach destinations, especially as this figure was consistent regardless of the travel mode.
Second, people are willing to walk further than we typically plan for.
For example, planners may typically apply a walkable catchment of an 800-metre radius around the central business district or transit nodes to allow for higher-density zoning. This distance is a walk of about ten minutes. Our data suggest this area could be expanded and more opportunities created to increase housing volume and diversity.
A slow reversal on the way?
Is this the first sign of a more sensible transport minister?
The new Minister of Transport has opened the door for public consultation on at least some of the speed limit changes the government said would be automatic.
Announcing the changes to speed limits last week, Transport Minister Chris Bishop issued two lists – one containing 49 stretches of state highway where there would be public consultation on whether to up the limits and one of 38 areas that would automatically return to higher speed limits.
At the time, Bishop said, “To ensure this process happens efficiently, over the next few months NZTA will incorporate the automatic speed reversal work alongside planned maintenance and project works.”
…..
Among those on the latter list were two stretches of SH6 – a 1.8km section through Marybank which is set to rise from 60kmh to 80kmh, and a section of 800m of Whitby Road in Wakefield that will rise to 70kmh.
Parents, local councillors, sustainable transport advocates and opposition MP Rachel Boyack all expressed outrage and concern about the move.
But at a press conference in Nelson on Friday, Bishop appeared to walk back the government’s stance on the automatic reversals, telling reporters there would now be public consultation on the Marybank and Wakefield changes.
“NZTA’s always had the discretion to engage with local communities and they’ll be doing that in relation to those two areas and there’s a couple of other examples around the country where there is local support for the speed limits to stay lower.”
…..
Bishop wouldn’t be drawn on precisely which of the other automatic reversals will no longer be automatic, but did name check mid-Canterbury town Rakaia, where locals, community advocates, the council and even the new Minister for the South Island, Rangitata MP James Meager, had decried the change.
“There’s an area in Rakaia, and I’ve had correspondence about another couple of areas up North.”
Bishop said the issue was a “complicated” one, and he had asked NZTA to add those “particular areas” to the consultation process.
He doubled down on comments the increased speed limits will improve the nation’s productivity.
“It’s just simple maths, right? If the speed limit goes from 80 to 100, it’s quicker to get from A to B? It’s just a simple matter of logic.
It’s not (just) simple maths: productivity will only improve if it means commercial vehicles, a small percentage of total road vehicles, can make more trips in a day. But that’s unlikely to be the case on most of these roads, where the impacts of higher posted speeds might only be a few minutes at best. It gets even more complicated when you factor in the delays caused after a crash occurs.
That the minister is showing himself to be more open to these changes highlights how communities up and down the country need to keep advocating for better safety outcomes.
The beauty in bike hubs
The Spinoff looks at the EcoMatters bike hubs, which play a highly productive role in many communities.
EcoMatters Bike Hub has helped 30,000 Aucklanders start cycling. Shanti Mathias rides over to understand the impact of these community bike workshops.
…..
The New Lynn Bike Hub, where Na has become a regular visitor, is one of a network of community bike workshops across Tāmaki Makaurau. Many hubs receive funding from their area’s local board, along with Auckland Transport. This funding helps each hub to open four days a week, with paid mechanics and volunteers always on site. The hubs receive bike donations, sell refurbished second hand bikes and, most importantly, have tools and space available to help people fix their bikes.
Beavering away
Anything else they can build? Maybe we need a few here.
A colony of beavers has saved the Czech government around NZ$2.2 million after completing a stalled dam project themselves.
Despite a seven-year planning process and successfully securing the funding, the Czech Republic’s plans to build a new dam in the Brdy region came to a standstill as authorities struggled to acquire building permits.
However, it was the arrival of eight hard-working beavers that finally got the job done.
…..
“They built the dams without any project documentation and for free.”
Risking kids’ safety and education
The Northern Advocate reports:
Bus route changes affecting at least seven Northland schools could mean students may have to navigate long, dangerous walks to school.
The Ministry of Education announced revised routes after a regular nationwide audit of school bus services identified routes with low use.
In the review some schools had their services cancelled while others were shortened or extended.
One of the affected schools, Whangaroa College, had its service reduced, leaving 24 students having to find alternate ways to get to school.
…..
Anderson said some students were now relying on parents and other family to get to school, or they were having to walk.
“We are concerned, especially about those walking as they have to walk along the main highway, State Highway 10. Traffic can move quickly in those areas.”
…..
“It’s a dangerous route to walk. There is also the danger of the weather. It gets really hot in summer and in winter you can guarantee there will be flooding, and that is a long walk, especially for a 5-year-old.
“Most parents travel about 30km to work and have to be there early, they can’t take their kids to school.
A wedding vehicle big enough to fit the entire bridal party
Yellow and green may not be the colours of love, but it was the colours of Anya and Mika Hervel’s wedding chariot, as they opted for a Wellington bus as their wedding vehicle.
After the ceremony at St Mary’s Chapel in Karori, the Hervels and 10 members of their bridal party to the Botanic Garden for photos, then to All Saints Church for their reception, then home to Kelburn.
“We kind of planned out the wedding with public transport in mind,” Mika Hervel said, with the bus making it easy to get to each venue.
“We wanted to start our marriage how we mean to continue living our lives together, which is caring for the planet.”
Sudden active-modes-only connection
The Whanganui Chronicle reports:
The Wakefield Street Bridge in Whanganui East will be closed to vehicles for at least 18 months.
It will remain open to pedestrians and cyclists but a safety review has determined the bridge is no longer safe for vehicles of any weight.
…..
The council closed the bridge on January 15 to allow for a safety inspection due to damage observed in the timber bracing.
“We know this bridge is really important to our community and we will be preparing a business case for Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency [NZTA] to advocate strongly for its replacement,” Whanganui District Council transportation manager Mark Allingham said.
…..
However, funding from the council’s application to the National Land Transport Plan (NLTP) was “unexpectedly turned down, along with funding for numerous other Whanganui infrastructure projects including completion of the Mountains to Sea pathway”, Allingham said.
Because the bridge is no longer fit for vehicles, the council can now apply to an NZTA fund specifically for structures that have reached the end of their life.
More housing in Christchurch?
The Press reports that some councillors are seeking to reopen the debate on housing, thanks to the efforts of the advocates at Greater Ōtautahi.
A block of prime industrial land on the edge of central Christchurch might be opened up for residential development, after new information came to light.
City councillor and mayoral hopeful Sara Templeton will ask her colleagues to recast their votes on whether to rezone an area of Sydenham between Moorhouse Ave and Brougham St – also known as SoMo, or south of Moorhouse – next week.
The initial vote on December 2 resulted in a tie, meaning it failed. However, Cr Celeste Donovan – who says incomplete legal advice over a conflict of interest stopped her from participating – might have broken that tie.
…..
She could have decided to participate regardless. But there are rules against councillors voting on things which could benefit them financially – they could be personally taken to court and lose their elected position – and only the office of the Auditor General (OAG) can grant an exemption.
Unbeknownst to her, the OAG did grant her an exemption, agreeing her participation was in the public interest.
Donovan said she only learnt of that decision around the beginning of February because of an official information act request by urbanist group Greater Ōtautahi.
Great work Greater Ōtautahi team!
A spark of colour
A cool story from Mangere about the upgrade of an alleyway to make it safer.
South Auckland residents, plagued with decades of antisocial behaviour at a “dark, dingy” alleyway, feel safer after it was recently upgraded.
The narrow alleyway, which runs between McKinstry Ave and Cottingham Cres in Māngere East, is a connecting space for many residents, the elderly and students from three nearby schools who use it as a short cut.
However, for many years, people have been scared to use it.
Residents complained of late-night noise, vandalism and violence, smashed beer bottles and used condoms, and in the past, it has been a hotspot for gang violence.
…..
AT’s senior project manger Ryan Clarke stumbled on the residents’ plight through Stuff’s 2013 article.
He was undergoing a leadership programme and together with his group, pitched the project to upgrade the alleyway.
When he returned to AT, he explored possible funding and secured $80,000 for the project, under their responsibility to keep footpaths safe.
The upgrade was completed in December, with a new fence, artwork from local street artist Eva Fuemana and engagement workshops with the local school.
Missing options in mini-mobility?
Interesting podcast from the US on a few other ways of getting around.
What’s a little bigger than a bike, a lot smaller than a car, and might be the tool you didn’t know you needed to get a big haul home from the grocery store two miles away in the pouring rain? The answer is actually an entire category of vehicles that aren’t common on U.S. roads — but with the right mix of policy, code, and infrastructure reform, we could see a lot more of them.
Bus priority in Boston
We know that bus priority helps make buses better and more reliable, a report out of Boston highlights some of the benefits from a project to give buses more priority at intersections.
The City of Boston and the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) have announced the expansion of a project that gives buses priority at intersections in a bid to improve reliability.
The move follows a trial on two MBTA bus routes along Brighton Avenue which saw a 21 percent drop in delays caused by red lights – resulting in eight percent faster travel times.
“The MBTA has great municipal partners who continue to collaborate with us on improving bus services, and we’re grateful to the City of Boston for building on the success of the 2019 Brighton Avenue bus lane project to add Transit Signal Priority to the bus lane corridor,” said MBTA General Manager and CEO Phillip Eng.
…..
The three-intersection transit signal priority (TSP) test along Brighton Avenue was deployed in July 2024, and since installation, buses travelling through the corridor spent 21 percent less time waiting at red lights on average and arrived at a green light five percent more often.
This resulted in eight percent faster travel times with each bus saving an average of 16 seconds for a combined total of 110 minutes saved each weekday.
Travel time savings were even greater during peak hours as each inbound Route 57 trip through the corridor was over 60 seconds faster.
Paris cycling network
Check out this video, pink paths make great cycleways!
Have a great weekend!
Processing...
Yes to the pea car!!
Re: the bike hub story
Has there been any serious discussion about scrapping our stupid helmet laws? Or making them for under16s or something only? No compulsory helmets would make having an actual bike hire scheme viable which is surely one of the first important steps in growing a proper cycling culture
ACT would probably come out in support of keeping it. Because that’s the timeline we are in.
Slightly more seriously, I think sadly we have more urgent fish to fry than the helmet law (which, to be clear, I DO want to see gone).
Oh I’m sorry Damian do you follow best practice or only when it suits? It’s the EXACT same argument you use to push your lower speeds agenda. IF you get in an accident you are less likely to die or be seriously injured wearing a helmet that’s just a fact. You just outed yourself as a big hypocrite who only wants speed limits to be lowered to push their anti car agenda (which btw is absolutely fine) but just come out and say “I want speeds lowered purely to drive mode shift”. Stop trying to desperately lower them under the guise of safety to rush your agenda in. I knew you were just wanting them because you’re anti car and you’ve just confirmed it thank you very much. I don’t want to hear anymore complaints about best practice or evidence from you because clearly you will do away with it when it suits just like many other NZers decided to do with demanding higher speeds.
IF you get in an accident you are less likely to die or be seriously injured wearing a helmet that’s just a fact.
IF you get in an accident you are less likely to die or be seriously injured at lower speed that’s just a fact.
Yeah Wilbert I know that slower speeds are safer. But Damian keeps going on about how important it is to have lower speeds then goes ahead and says we should scrap the helmet law. He’s a hypocrite and deserves to be called out for it. You can’t say IF you get in an accident slower speeds are better as your argument then go ahead and throw caution into the wind surrounding helmets. Simply put Damian has been exposed as anti car plain and simple, why he won’t just admit that is beyond me.
High speeds are one (of several) cause for crashes.
Not wearing helmets are not causing crashes.
Cars traveling at high speeds are significantly more dangerous for other road users than slower cars.
People biking without a helmet are not more dangerous than people that bike wearing a helmet.
So there is quite a big difference between the two.
No there isn’t John you liar. Besides you lot always say “it’s not so much about the cause” “it’s about what happens IF there is a crash” which the evidence tells us helmets make that safer. HELMETS LIKE SPEED AFFECT THE CONSEQUENCES OF EVERY CRASH. Sorry John if you don’t support compulsory helmets you are not evidence based and are choosing to introduce more RISK to cycling and other activities like scooters etc. Weather you like to admit it or not this is the same thing as arguing for higher speeds it makes the activity more fun but introduces risk. Now at least many who advocate for higher speeds just say they don’t care about evidence etc but you’re trying to push it through under the guise of safety.
hypocrite you are Colah when you kick up a tantrum over safer speeds. the evidence tells us that if you hit a pedestrian at 30kph they have a 90% survival chance, at 50kph they have a 90% chance 9f dying. crashes are less dangerous at lower speeds, not that you care because your head is so far up your rear bumper you can’t stand not getting to your destination a microsecond slower.
Maybe do what I’ve done for years; a 2 hour round trip on foot to and from the supermarket for groceries. Then you can come back to me and cry about the oppression of losing a few minutes travel time because of a 30kph speed limit past a school or whatever your cager victim complex tells you to say.
If you want to discuss the psychological impact of poor road design or car culture, we would all be happy to, but your broken record “muh democracy” and “me want go fast” is tiresome and at this point trolling.
Sorry burrower are you trolling? Where did I once say I didn’t support optional helmets? I’m indifferent on the issue and would be happy to have a referendum and let the people decide. If they want to get rid of helmets that’s ok. Burrower I’m not trying to be offensive or rude but question why don’t you just get your groceries delivered?
Maybe one of the main reasons I’m pro speed because I’ve seen the many benefits of higher speeds particularly higher urban speeds. There is no road in AKL that compares to some of the pro car roads in SYD/BNE. 80kmh speed limits in urban areas. Many of the roads in Mount Colah have a 60K urban speed limit. Based on the logic higher speeds are less safe they should have more road deaths. Except inconveniently both states have a LOWER road toll. This is despite the majority of travel in Brisbane not done on safer motorways and instead on 70-80k urban roads with barely any pedestrian/cycle infrastructure. Now I’m not going to make a comment like “be grateful” I know it sucks having to live without a car in a car dependant city but it’s our reality and the number of vehicles on Auckland roads no matter how good we make our PT is only going to grow so yes I actually would like to see seperated cycleways btw but again I’ve got the issue of the majority not on my side and that’s ok I will live with it.
“Yeah Wilbert I know that slower speeds are safer.”
I’m pleased to hear that.
That now means you are no longer in favour of “but 65% of us wants the blanket removal of speed limits” and “the people have chosen for this”.
This coincides with the fact that the National party has changed its stance on this as well. I firmly believe that they noticed they were losing too many votes from their base voters so they swapped around some ministers and immediately backtracked from the blanket removal.
They didn’t have to do that as they, together with Act an NZ First, ultimately have a majority.
But hey, that’s democracy for you or, if you prefer, progressive/advancing insight.
Re removal of helmet law. I don’t see anything hypocritical in Damian’s opinion. Laws can be outdated and might need to be reviewed from time to time.
What I object to is that the helmet law takes away personal responsibility.
In most mature cycle-countries, no laws exist or, if there is a law, it’s only to a certain age.
That doesn’t necessarily mean people won’t wear a helmet. In fact, most tour cyclists, mountain bikers, and a lot of younger and older people still wear a helmet. But it’s their personal choice and that’s how it should be.
Removing it from law will also free up police time so they can focus more on stopping drivers under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs. I know you’re in big favour of that.
Personal responsibility could also be an argument around speed of course. And to a certain extent, I don’t disagree with that. If someone wants to wrap themselves around a tree doing 150 kph, please feel free.
But if someone goes 150 and crashes into my car head-on, or takes me out doing 50 in a suburban street that has parked cars on both sides, I would strongly disagree with that argument.
Thank you for voicing your opinion Wilbert. I believe the helmet law should go to a referendum then that solves it once and for all. Give people the data about the safety difference between crashing with/without and just like the speeds the NZ public will probably ignore it lol. But I just want to make it clear that’s ok as long as the majority are getting what they want. As for the speeds I actually agree it might be some of the base being brassed off however I do believe by not pushing through with reversing them all they will lose a lot of swing voters as it’s one of those policy’s that many Labour and Green voters probably actually like (well the ones that drive a car anyway). But yep I don’t care about what a few base National voters think as long as the majority is getting their way I’m happy. The majority should always decide we should be allowed to give them evidence and explain the consequences of what might happen but if they still chose to ignore it that’s ok. One thing though Damians opinion is 1000% hypocritical he directly referred to things like “speed affects the consequences of virtually every crash” as his main arguments for lowering them. See how that’s hypocritical helmets are the same they affect the consequences of virtually every crash involving a bike but he is happy to do away with it even though it would affect safety. Damian is just anti car though so it’s no surprise there is nothing wrong with that of course but chooses to omit that fact and pretends to care about safety which I believe is deliberately deceitful. You’ve actually bought up a great point about the speeds. Maybe we could keep the lowered limits but have a much larger tolerance say 20kmh then quadruple the fines. The 30k limits with zero tolerance don’t work as even most bikes and police cars exceed the limit. Therefore AT could actually make a valid case for reducing mean operating speeds as having a majority of cars over the 30k operating speed is stupid as it traps 80% of road users into breaking the law not wanting to be the one person to actually do 30. It would also just make travelling on the Waikato expressway better as most cars would just cruise at 120. Then nail the ones going over 130. But what am I saying the govt loves the revenue too much or they would’ve already speed limited new cars and bikes especially now with NZTA operating all our Redflex NK-7 cameras expect tickets issued to skyrocket.
Why on earth would you waste money on a referendum on cycle helmets? What matters is whether the benefits to the health system from a healthier population if more people cycle outweighs the costs of more injuries.
An expensive poll of a whole lot of people that never ride a bike would add no value to the decision.
I’ve cycled close to daily for 25 years and had collisions or near collisions with other vehicles 5 times. 3 of these resulted In my helmet hitting the road, 1 of these split it in half.
While we have a socialised health system, I think the helmet law is a good thing.
Good on you for cycling for so long and wearing a helmet.
What I do find puzzling though is that, being such an experienced cyclist and aware of all the dangers, you still need a law to make you wear a helmet.
In all but 5 countries in the world, there are no or only limited laws (usually for children) for wearing a helmet.
In a lot of those countries without or with limited laws, you will still see a large percentage of people wearing a helmet. You would hardly ever see amateur racing cyclists or mountain bikers not wearing a helmet.
In other words, why do you need a law if you already know it’s better and safer to wear one?
I am FOR Helmets.
In 2001 I was doored by an elderly gentlemen opening his car door which impacted my left hand breaking several bones in my hand.
I somersaulted over the car door and landed on the tarseal.
A dent in the helmet showed where it hit the tarseal. I am sure that I would have been worse off if I had NOT been wearing a helmet.
People SHOULD wear helmets. The problem is, if you FORCE them to, you create a massive barrier to entry
This means less people cycle and ultimately having a bigger slice of the population cycling is what keeps cyclists safe
The countries that mandate helmets have some of the lowest rates of cycling globally, while the places with the highest rate of cycling dont even wear helmets, let alone try to force everyone to wear them
It’s not a “massive” barrier to entry Jesus Christ like $60 at most for one. Why don’t we just start repealing a whole lot of safety things because it’s a “barrier to entry”. WOFs? Nah too much of a barrier to entry. Hi vis? Too much of a barrier to entry? Safety requirements for flying is that too much of a barrier to entry?. Listen to yourself do you realise you sound like the crowd who wants to raise speeds because “it takes the joy out of motoring”. Only difference is those people have the balls to admit they don’t care about safety.
You could just look at the evidence from here when helmet law passed and overseas with or without the law and see the massive difference in bike usage.
There seems to be a fair bit of anger here from Mount COlah or whoever that is.
I cannot see but isn’t the main point around helmets not being mandatory is that it actually reduces crashes. Because drivers see people just cycling along normally and adjust their behaviour. At least that is what i thought the research had shown from Netherlands, Denmark, etc.
2+2=5 eh?
We have low cycling numbers and countries that have high cycling numbers don’t have helmet laws, ergo it must be the helmets that are causing the issue.
Of course it can’t be that our roading infrastructure has been biased towards the motor vehicle for ages and therefore cycling has actually become dangerous on some roads.
Ah, but it’s “what the majority” wants. Colah would endorse the destruction of the planet if they thought it was what more people wanted, damn the evidence.
Burrower why are you so anti democracy? You seem to want to erode it at every opportunity. Your opinions although I agree you’re allowed to express them are dangerous. I’m all for evidence but also all for ignoring it if that is what the democratic process chooses. AT and NZTA put out plenty of press releases with links to evidence that safer speeds are good etc. However the public chose to raise speeds after weighing up the precious minutes of time saving against the chance of harm. I would still vote against complete destruction of the environment as that’s what the democratic process allows which I see you’re against. By not being 100% for democracy you risk everything. Evidence can be written to suit just about any narrative. All it would take is for someone to show some evidence that didn’t use the dodgy abley factoring calculations and it would show the roads actually overall got more dangerous after AT implemented the phase 1 reductions. What do you want next a report written by Geoff Upson? Again if the evidence found not spending a single cent on cycleways would help the govt meet its budget should we just “go with the evidence” and not even question it? Burrower listen very clearly to this you should treasure democracy for all it’s worth because it lets everyone challenge all decisions fairly and just. Automatically going with the evidence is dangerous and divisive. Be careful what you wish for I’ll tell you now just back off and let democracy decide these speed limits through the NZTA consultations. If you don’t and you interfere you might piss the public off enough to elect someone like Geoff Upson into transport minister then you’ll really be sorry you ever complained although we won’t be able to hear you over all the cars going 130+ on motorways and 60+ in urban areas.
Fully agree with you Kraut.
Research in the Netherlands has shown that, if a helmet would be made mandatory, a large percentage of people would simply stop cycling.
That, in turn, has a negative effect on health and will lead to less investment in cycling infrastructure.
And you’re right: people should wear a helmet and a lot of them do – they don’t need a law for that. What they do need is education.
As for some of the replies: apples and oranges.
E.g. WoF: if someone wants to drive in a car with no or failing brakes, be my guest. As long as you kill yourself, I couldn’t care less.
If, on the other hand, you drive into me because you have no brakes, then yes, I would be most upset.
And that’s why WoF is mandatory. It’s not there to protect the idiot but to protect the innocent bystander. You know, being part of civil society and stuff like that.
Surprised no mentioned seat belt laws, we fine people $150 for not wearing a seat belt. By the logic of you helmet law people, most adults know it’s safer for them to wear a seat belt, why are we fining them if they don’t?
And Wilbert you are conveniently omitting the fact that protecting yourself wearing a helmet reduces the burden on society if you were to (heaven forbid) be in an accident. You know being part of civil society and all that. It’s the same reason seatbelts are mandatory. It’s probably just too dangerous now with the speeds E Bikes get up to to even consider removing the law. Although if it’s what the majority want I guess we will have to comply. Except… I haven’t heard calls from a large part of society that we should remove said law. So how about you just suck it up be a good human and wear your helmet and seatbelt. At least we know from this debate Damian simply wants lower speeds because it annoys drivers that’s a positive finally some honesty.
Did you really think researchers didn’t compare the costs of less cycling on the one hand and increased accidents on the other?
In fact, it is well known that the number of cycle accidents in the Netherlands has increased in the last few years. None of that has led to anyone saying that helmets should become compulsory.
Same in all but 5 countries in the world. But of course, they’ve got it all wrong.
Point is that, like wearing seatbelts, it should be a personal choice and responsibility, not something that should be controlled by law.
And once again, a large percentage of cyclists do wear a helmet – they don’t need a law telling them they should.
Ok, like Damain Grant you’re writing from libertarian perceptive. Good to know
Oh Wilbert I appreciate the honesty that you don’t care about safety but we are not the Netherlands and we don’t have to copy everything that happens overseas. We should increase the fines for not wearing helmets and seatbelts and start registering bikes with licence plates so they can also be booked for speeding. Cyclists are some of the most common speeders now I also think doing this will relive some of the pressure from woke people to lower speed limits so aggressively. Reminder it takes everyone to get to no one. And also we do need laws for this stuff given how many drivers have gone straight through windshields over the years. Give police ANPR let’s really start getting tough on drivers AND cyclists. Or allow them to not wear helmets but I will refuse to pay a cent into any hospital bills from these people and o reckon I have the numbers to win a referendum on this basis.
Wow, you’re pulling out all the stops now aren’t you? It’s good to hear what type of country you prefer to live in though.
Nowhere have I ever mentioned I don’t care about safety. All I’ve ever said is that it should be every person’s own choice and responsibility to wear a helmet or a seatbelt for that matter.
And I keep repeating this, most people would still wear a helmet or a seatbelt. The point is, they don’t need a law for that.
And instead of the Netherlands, I could have mentioned UK, Switzerland, Russia, Poland, Norway, Italy, India, Mexico as a few other countries without a helmet law.
Given that public hospitals are funded through public money, I’d like to see how you can stop paying a cent towards that.
And since you’ve got the numbers, and assuming you are a New Zealand citizen, I look forward to seeing a citizens initiated referendum raised by you in 2026.
I’m sure you’re aware that you would need 10% of the registered voters to support your petition so that’s roughly 300,000 to 350,000 people.
Details can be found here: https://elections.nz/democracy-in-nz/about-elections/what-is-a-referendum/
The “consultation process” will inevitably water down the “blanket” speed reduction reversal. While it may have gained a few votes,the reality of faster speeds clearly does not sit well, with the locals ,who have to deal with the consequences. The tragic outcome in Martinborough, highlights,the folly of speed over safety.
The Southern Motorway is currently closed,due to an accident,how much productivity is being lost,because of it ?
Southern motorway crash was nothing to do with the speed limit though there was three bikes were weaving in and out of traffic recklessly and one of them unfortunately found out what happens. Proof once again that it’s “idiots” not the speed limit that has anything to do with most accidents. We actually need to ask ourselves how many of these “accidents” are just reckless drivers that will ignore the new speed limits anyway.
Anecdotal evidence (a Reddit post posting screenshots from a Facebook group) suggest that landlords are feeling the pinch and having to drop rents. Inject it straight into my veins. https://www.reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/1ioedbf/more_property_speculators_struggling_to_find/
Luxon: “See downward presure on rents interest deduction working as intended”
Through Daphne I do agree based if true
In defence of beavers.
The ongoing lack of action on any sort of bus priority in the city surely has to be the number one way to improve PT with limited resources.
Coordinated bus corridors in all major north, south, east, west, routes by filling in the gaps.
I mean we built a dedicated bus interchange at Lower Albert yet buses still have to compete with huge number of vehicle crossings, carp park entries, etc – the Quay st area outside HSBC tower is a cluster of single vehicle movements (including M Social taxis/buses constantly parking on the actual footpath) making walking along what is probably now meant to be our premier walking area a bit of a minefield – how we do not have a full 24/7 bus lane from Lower Albert to the North Shore is beyond me.
Please support your local Mayor, Councillors and Local Board Members in their promotion of bus priority measures – bus boost signals, dynamic lanes, bus and transit lanes – so that AT can plan as many as possible without endless public engagement and push-back. And then find some money, since Govt. won’t contribute.
The Whangaroa College story is achingly sad. That is a very deprived region of the country, where many students will not live close to the school. The roll is only 129 students, so nearly 20% of the roll may not have a way to get to school. That’s the sort of thing that can devastate a school and be yet another barrier to the region overcoming poverty. I can’t see how the Ministry could find that is a low usage bus worthy of cutting, unless someone simply looked at numbers on a spreadsheet in Wellington.
Some good things happening. Yeah, that Paris rate of change is great for cycling. Good to see that train through CRL too.
This is related to the wedding story. I saw a group on Waiheke a few years ago who were going to some kind of function all get on a bus they had chartered to get from the ferry to the venue. There were more people than seats on the bus too so some of the group were standing and the bus was full.
Helmet Referendum..are you like ok Mount Colah? Me thinks the only helmet you might wear is made out of tin foil