Auckland Cycle Chic has done a post on her blog about John Bank’s recent speech to the Go By The Bike Breakfast.
During which he implied the reasons cyclists are getting hit on our roads is that it is basically their own damn fault. He said cyclists need to be sure to wear plenty of high visibility gear, or Cycle Chic eloquently puts,
“So you’re cycling along, minding your own business, and a car drives into you – this is your fault because you weren’t dressed like a road cone?!”,
Banks then went on to talk about the Tamaki Drive improvements (didn’t we just spend money adding T3 lanes, does anyone know what is happening on this road?) and finally he announced Cyclists need to stop running red lights and a campaign would be started to educate cyclists to be safer on the roads.
WHAT?
We are going to educate the 1% of people who currently cycle to work to be safer when:
1). They are doing those who catch buses and drive to work a massive favour by occupying much less road space.
2). Almost 3/4 of accidents involving a car and a cyclist are the drivers fault.
It is like having a campaign where the 75% of us who don’t smoke are told it is our fault the smokers are dying prematurely and we need to get them to quit. As much as he tries to hide it, V8 Bank’s true beliefs come out. Now he is going to be wasting my hard earned rates due to his ignorance.
I’m a massive fan of cycling and believe the positive effect it can have on our city is under estimated even by PT enthusiasts. Here is something I’m sure a few people wouldn’t have seen, the planned Auckland Regional Cycle Network:
A few points; shared bus/cycle lanes where the lanes are for buses 2 hours a day and car parking for the remaining 22 hours a day are not cycle lanes, stop pretending Auckland City Council! A minimum standard of cycle lane should be established Auckland wide, on arterial roads anything less than a curb or poled barrier is unacceptable, funding for other bicycling infrastructure such as showers and cycle parking at employment needs to be provided, plans should include the latest techniques such as exterior cycle racks on buses and where cycle lanes run on arterial roads, if a quiet residential road is adjacent – turn it into a bicycle boulevard by only allowing cycles and residents of the streets cars (cost: a few signs).
For the cost of Waterview or Puhoi to Wellsford ($1.4 billion) we could have this entire network and supporting infrastructure built within 5 years to a very high standard, not by 2040 which is pie in the sky the way cycle lanes are being funded at the moment, we could have 10% – 20% of the regions population cycling to work safely on a daily basis. If we want a step change in Auckland’s transport and to live in the kind of pleasant, sustainable city we all want, completeing this regional cycling network “crash” style is by far the easiest and cheapest way to achieve that.
Processing...
Actually, 64% of car v bike accidents are the sole cause of the motorist according to the Ministry of Transport (http://www.transport.govt.nz/research/documents/cyclist-crash-factsheet.pdf) but you’re quite right. Its just bizarre making comments like that.
Anyway, being dressed like road cones didn’t help the 4 guys from Pickled Pedallers (who as a group all have bright orange shirts) when they got taken out by the silly bint running the stop sign. Sad thing too is that particular group are well known amongst Auckland roadies for their law abiding and safety conscious way.
Then again, remember this is the same bloke who was part of the council who implemented the T2 (its not even 3, its just 2!) lanes and also forced the cancellation of the Bike the Bays event.
Aaron Bhatnagar – I know you read this occasionally and have Banksie’s ear. Could you please point out the MoT’s own statistics and show him he’s putting the cash in the complete wrong direction. When that figure shifts to 65% cyclist fault, then I’m all for putting the cash in the way he wants to.
Disclaimer: I won’t for a second say that cyclists don’t run red lights et al, however the statistics clearly show where fault in the majority of accidents lay. I also ride and I’d like to note that like your average driver I obey the law around about 90% of the time and will admit to having run A red right turn light in the last week – at 6:05am in the morning – on an intersection that generally won’t change lights for bikes. Not that that is any excuse.
I guess I was being a bit liberal with 3/4 but I like being liberal..!
It is a point cycle chic made in her post, what are cyclists supposed to do when lights will not change for them but will for cars..? Banks should do something useful like put this campaign money into increasing sensitivity at traffic light sensors…
Well if you include shared fault, you’d get away with 73% if that’s any help 😉
But yeah, you’re both quite right re: lights etc.
What I find interesting though is that ‘law-abiding’ cyclist bar seem to be set far higher bar than to be considered a ‘law-abiding’ driver bar.
Exactly, I see very few cyclists running red lights at busy intersections during peak times but I barely ever see a light change WITHOUT a couple of cars doing so…
The simple fact of the matter is cyclists have a much greater incentive to be safer on the roads than drivers, they are not protected by a metal box..!
I can literally think of 1,000 better uses for ratepayer money than this…
I agree with that, the amount of people who actually drive under 50km/h speed limits, indicate properly at roundabouts etc must be a small minority. Why is it exactly that car drivers get away with bending the rules but cyclists aren’t given any leeway?
Just yesterday I was riding along a four lane road and pulled over to the curb to take a phone call, and I had some guy yelling at ‘stopping in the middle of the street and slowing him down’ There certainly wasn’t any no stopping lines there, and I assume that if I were pulling a car over to park he wouldn’t have said a thing. The ironic thing is five minutes later I’m riding along again and the same guy has stopped in the middle of the lane to reverse into a parallel car park! Talk about double standards.
Don’t know what the comparable figures here are, but in Victoria cycle accidents are the leading cause of outpatient hospital admissions among 30-49 males. Think about the savings to our Health budget improvements to the cycle network accrue. We spend millions on alcohol, drug re-habilitation, goodness knows how much engineering our roads and urban spaces but next to nothing on one of our leading form of transport (and unfortunately illness and injury).
In Australia, where it is boom industry, cycle sales easily outstrip vehicle sales. Cycle sales are growing at 20% p.a. whilst vehicle sales are declining.
When it comes to cycling you can see how far detached our leaders are from how people undergo their everyday lives.
From memory the Vic Transport plan allocated quite a bit to cycling…
Don’t think the Vic govt can take much credit. I think people themselves are working out that its superior to both cars and public transport.
Lots of cycling activities in Melbourne, the round the bays got over 10,000 and there is a critical mass too (we should start one in Auckland)…
There is a critical mass in Auckland. Try last Friday of the month starting in Albert Park.
Actually, there are strong health benefits to society (though not necessary to you if you are unlucky) even under NZ conditions with relatively high cycling accident numbers. Speaking in much simplified terms, our society is so lacking in physical exercise, that cycling extends your life expectancy by a factor of over 10 times more than the average rate of cycle accidents shortens it.
In other words: cycling makes you live LONGER.
Among other things this is included in the fact that health benefits in NZTA’s funding calculations have recently jumped from 16c per km of cycling to to $1.45 per km cycling. That means when calculating whether to build a cycle path, cycle lane etc… health benefits make up around 90% of the total benefit in the “Benefit-Cost” equations. While I think they are underplaying the other advantages of cycling, it is a powerful statement nonetheless.
@David, thanks for that, I didn’t know and will now have to come along…
@Max, Denmark did a study and on average their citizens who cycle 10 or more kms a day live 4 years longer than those you did little to no cycling…
“…shared bus/cycle lanes where the lanes are for buses 2 hours a day and car parking for the remaining 22 hours a day are not cycle lanes, stop pretending Auckland City Council!”
Actually, for a number of reasons bus lanes make pretty good cycle lanes outside the hours of operation for buses. Firstly, people are less inclined to drive in bus lanes because of the potential for parked cars. They’re also less likely to park in bus lanes even when they are allowed; it seems the signs, paint and green surface scare some people off! Then, even if people do park in the bus lane there is generally enough room outside that for cyclists to ride (accept if it’s a really skinny bus lane < 3.5m).
"A minimum standard of cycle lane should be established Auckland wide, on arterial roads anything less than a curb or poled barrier is unacceptable"
This just isn't practical in Auckland. Most of our arterial roads are multi-use with commercial, retail and in a lot of places even residential activities. The multitude of functions they provide mean that there are frequent vehicle accesses/crossings and side roads. This makes "protected" cycle lanes (e.g. ones behind a kerb or barrier like those put in recently in NYC – some examples here http://bit.ly/aMFrI7) impractical. One thing that all those pictures have in common? No vehicle crossings. Sure, there are a few good candidates – Balmoral Rd btwn Manukau Road and St Andrews, or TI Drive in Manukau – but these are the exception. Building cycle infrastructure in Auckland is not an easy task as we have a relatively young transport network (i.e. originally purpose built for cars) with LOTS of traffic (surprise!). We have to try and make the most of what we can practically achieve .
Hey TopCat, what is your source that “in Victoria cycle accidents are the leading cause of outpatient hospital admissions among 30-49 males”?
Actually for Victorian outpatient admissions in that age and gender group *motorcycle* accidents are the leading cause, followed by car accidents, then slips, trips and falls at ground level. Pedal cycle accidents are fourth most frequent cause, with roughly half as many cases as motorcycle accidents. (Actually attempted suicide by poisoning slots in at number three, but I left it out because its intentional self harm rather than a ‘accident’)
The point still stands though, a lot is spent on car and motorcycle safety but not a hell of a lot on cycle safety improvements. However, as Jezza points out the VIC transport plan is responding fairly quickly to the growth in cycling, and Victoria does already have the best urban cycling infrastructure in Australasia.
@ R.Lin I dont agree, Auckland has some fantasically wide roads because we were built in a large part in the car dominated period of development…
That means we can have:
Cycle lane –> Bus Lane –> Car Lane –> 1 foot median <– Car Lane <– Bus Lane <– Cycle Lane
@ Jeremy Harris – That proposed cross section and your original statement are two totally different things. “A minimum standard of cycle lane should be established Auckland wide, on arterial roads anything less than a curb or poled barrier is unacceptable”. That seems to indicate you want cycle lanes to be segregated by kerb or barrier, not a central median. In any case a 1 foot wide central median wouldn’t be particularly useful for anything, that’s basically 2 standard kerbs back-to-back.
Anyways, I’m not disagreeing with the intention of that post – we’re in dire need of seriously improved cycle facilities in Auckland. I just don’t think sweeping statements about minimum standards for Auckland’s arterials is a good place to start; both the functions and the form of arterials in Auckland are too different for generalisations.
No there are not, in my proposed cross section the cycle lanes are on the outside, seperated from the buslanes by a curb…
Europe has had some success with semi-on-carriageway (don’t know the correct term) cycle lanes. I.e. the cycle lanes are at about half the height of the footpath, so somewhat separated from the road. But then, they have priority over side roads even for pedestrians, so here in NZ, a cyclist needs to be kept on the road for the path to be attractive for anyone not on a leisure trip.
Barrier-protected cycle lanes (pole-protected ones are out – crash hazard!) CAN work, but only in very limited circumstances. Paris actually has a lot of them in the central city now, but their starts and ends often get blocked by wild parking (Those “Just gonna be a minute!” assholes). Also, debris accumulates in the “channel” formed by the extra kerb and the normal kerb. Pretty much a mixed bag. Here in NZ, as noted, driveways occur too often in most locations, so standard cycle lanes (maybe a little wider than the minimum!) are the only reasonable thing. Or 4.2m or wider buslanes (with or without parking during off-peak times – at that width, its both okay).
That median Jeremy is talking about? What for? It is not wide enough for turning right on it, and it will only encourage opposing traffic to speed. Only use would be for pedestrians to precariously wait on it. Let’s take it out to give each cycle lane another half foot, or instead make it at least 1.5m-2.0m (that actually allows right turns, even though the car isn’t fully off the through lanes – and miore importantly, it allows refuge crossings for pedestrians).
Pole protected ones work when they are between areas designated for parking (i.e. a parking “lane”) and a cycle lane… I should have perhaps said when each was suitable…
The medians were for exactly that, pedestrians to wait on, probably too skinny on reflection… If there is space it makes sense for right turn lanes but in “older” Auckland space is more limited, priority should be for buses and cycles, people will go into the bus lanes to get around turning vehicles when there are no buses looming…
“Pole protected ones work when they are between areas designated for parking (i.e. a parking “lane”) and a cycle lane… I should have perhaps said when each was suitable…”
Jeremy – research and practice has shown that that layout however increases the safety risk for the cyclists something fierce when he emerges from being hidden behind the parked cars at a side road or driveway. *Squash*
Could be made safe, but not without great difficulty…
“The medians were for exactly that, pedestrians to wait on, probably too skinny on reflection…”
It is my understanding that most flush medians were installed for right turns, not peds. But I have no proof.
Really, protected cycle lanes would logically be safer but as induced demand shows what seems logical can often not be in transport, got a study I can read..?
Yeah I’m pretty sure medians are for right turns… I advocate a change in mindset, that roads are the PUBLIC room and priority should be given to the vehicles that use the space most effectively…
To be honest when it comes to cycle lanes I’m of two minds:
Personally I wouldn’t use them or tend to need to use them and they can be (especially footpath style lanes) actually be more dangerous than the road actually is, then again I ride further than your average driver drives every week.
For someone like old Aunt Maude, they can be a percieved safe place which might encourage them to undertake short journeys by bike instead of by car.
So while I don’t think they would be the panacea for all the cycling/transport ills, they can be useful.
I prefer to cycle as a ‘normal’ part of traffic on the road if I am riding for transport, or on totally separate scenic bike paths if I am riding for fun. A decent road lane for cyclists is better than a line on the footpath in my opinion.
“I advocate a change in mindset, that roads are the PUBLIC room and priority should be given to the vehicles that use the space most effectively…”
A dangerous argument. Car drivers (and their politicians) regularly argue that that is THEMSELVES who use road space most efficiently, and can somebody please clear out all those buses (bus lanes are empty ALL the time!) and those cyclists (holding up REAL traffic!).
Roads need to be safe for all users, and in constrained situations, they should prioritise high-volume traffic. That does not automatically mean bus lanes though.
“especially footpath style lanes”
Trickster, those aren’t cycle lanes, they are cycle paths. Cycle lanes are always ON the road carriageway. The important difference is that you have right of way on them. On the footpath, you are just the idiot who has to wait at every side road, and gets hit by drivers coming out of the driveways.
ingolfson – my point exactly 😉
Also, re: efficiently, well the fact you could fit about 9 bikes into the size of a car would argue otherwise purely on a space perspective.
Trickster, the word here is “argue”. The car proponents will tell you that your comment is rubbish as soon as you go more than 2kms, or it gets rainy or too sunny, or you have to carry more than a toothpick…
Efficiency means different things for different people. Since the car drivers are (literally) in the driver’s seat of our current national policies, we need to push the benefits of cycling, rather than let them bog us down in comparative arguments where we can’t but lose, seeing as they are chosen that way.