It is always tragic when anyone dies on the roads. But it is especially frustrating when deaths are so easily preventable – and especially when a danger-spot has been previously pointed out as “an accident waiting to happen”, but nothing is done until, somewhat inevitably, that accident does happen.

It seems as though this was the case with yesterday’s cycling tragedy on Tamaki Drive.

Twenty-seven-year-old Jane Mary Bishop, on a working holiday from the UK, was killed on Auckland’s Tamaki Drive after a car opened its door, forcing her to take evasive action. She was hit by a truck. Her death is the fifth cyclist’s death in five days.

A piece on National Radio this evening confirmed that back in 2006 Cycle Action Auckland specifically warned Auckland City Council of the dangers faced at the very point where Jane Mary Bishop died. Disgracefully, those warnings were ignored.

It’s easy to see how the tragedy happened, as that point is an ugly mix of parked cars, a blind corner, a narrower than usual lane and so forth. The google streetview image highlights the problem quite clearly: It seems utterly crazy that cars are allowed to park along this stretch of road, particularly near the blind corners. I can very easily see how a cyclist – swerving to avoid an opening door – could end up under the wheels of a following vehicle. In fact it’s almost surprising it doesn’t happen more often. While “technically” the footpath along Tamaki Drive is split between cyclists and pedestrians, this is a completely inadequate solution – as the route is trafficked so heavily by pedestrians that the cyclists are actually a danger to them.

The solutions seem fairly obvious:

  1. Eliminate car parking in areas where there’s no enough room for cyclists to safely ride far enough out from the parked cars to avoid opening doors.
  2. Reassess whether you really need a median strip, or whether that road-width would be more useful as a protected two-way cycleway. I’m a huge fan of physically separating cyclists from road traffic and creating a two-way cycleway, perhaps down the “land-side” of the road.

Something like the image below would be perfect: Fortunately, Auckland Transport and Auckland Council seem reasonably onto the need for an urgent solution, and hopefully they will not act as disgracefully as Auckland City Council in ignoring cycling danger spots.

Update: I have got a copy of a 2006 letter sent by Cycle Action Auckland to Auckland City Council warning the council of safety dangers for cyclists around Auckland. Included as a prime example is this:

Yes, that is the exact spot where yesterday’s tragedy occurred.

Share this

58 comments

  1. wow. Damning evidence. What is the deal with these pointless “flush” medians. Remove them- the friction will also slow down the cars.

  2. I disagree they didn’t have safety in mind for cyclists – they have their own cycle lane. They just need to use it! As for pedestrians being close by, cyclists should slow for the conditions, just as cars are expected to, and of course cyclists and pedestrians are a safer mix than cyclists and cars.

    Every Sunday I drive along this road, and always encounter cyclists riding two abreast, occupying 4 metres of the road out from the curb, leaving a narrow 2-3 metre space for cars. And they wonder why I drive past them within inches? I really think that cyclists should be required by law to use the cycleway here. Leave the road for cars, and everybody will be safer.

    1. Geoff you show a complete lack of understanding of the type of cycling that takes place along here. Sure there are people who are out for a leisurely bike along the waterfront. The cycle track on the footpath would be perfect for them. Riding a skinny wheeled road bike at 40km/h along this rutted path with plenty of pedestrians on it is not an option.

      The choke point at Kelly Taltons is terrible and I hope those who ignored this report are carefully thinking about the results of their actions.

    2. Geoff, that thinking is fundamentally wrong. Cyclists have a right to be on the road. If you remove that right, you must provide a equally good facility for them. The “cycle lane” on Tamaki Drive is in no way up to standard as a road replacement — it is narrow, poorly marked, one-way, poorly paved in parts, frequently blocked by pedestrians and, as the picture above shows, in still in the path of car doors.

      The “debates” that arise in NZ after bad cycle accidents shows the low regard motorists have for cyclists. “They shouldn’t be on the road”, “they ride like maniacs”, “they should get out of the way”, “they’re a danger to themselves”, “they caused the accident”,… If you’d like to look into it you’d find that the majority of car/bike accidents here are caused by the driver of the car. Clearly the design of the roads do not help but still drivers need to recognize that cyclists are present and need a lot of room to be safe.

      As for the two abreast remarks, that is completely irrelevant to all of the accidents that have happened recently. In any case, cyclists are allowed to ride two abreast and Tamaki Drive on a Sunday is probably a fine place to be doing so.

  3. Geoff, the “cycle lane” on Tamaki Drive is pathetic. It’s rutted and lifted through lack of maintenance, it’s narrow, it’s cluttered with street signs and lamp posts, and the pedestrians who use it crowd the entire width most of the time.
    Given that it’s an offence to use a shared path at a “hazardous” speed, and my average speed for a Mechanics Bay-St Heliers return trip is about 25-30km/h, I’d be breaking the law were I to try and ride on the cycleway. It’d be dangerous to pedestrians, and dangerous to me. So bugger off if you think I’m going to endanger others purely for the convenience of drivers.

  4. I also question the use (or non-use?) of the cycle lane at that spot.
    The lane is on the wrong side of the footpath for a start (as parked car’s passengers opening their doors will still pose a danger to cyclists) but that could be easily changed with a new line of paint.

    Please note, I’m not from Auckland and and am only using Google’s tools as evidence. I don’t know whether the footpath is of sufficient quality for lycra-clad prima donnas (mountain bike riders wouldn’t have a as much of a problem with a rough surface), or if it is strewn with broken bottles or light poles that stick out (although it looks like they are right up against the concrete wall so shouldn’t pose an issue).

    QUESTION: was the cyclist that got hit using this cycle lane? (I really don’t know, and the media hasn’t really shone light on this issue).

    The other issue, being shared-use of the footpath. This inherently has problems, but doesn’t the concientious transport planners mode use heirachy/mantra go pedestrian > cyclist > motor vehicle? In which case cyclists should take care to slow down around pedestrians in such a situation?

    1. Seamonkey, the path is, in many places, only barely wider than an ordinary foothpath. In some places, including the spot adjacent to this crash site, it’s not even that wide. The surface quality there is quite good, but in many other places it’s lifted and rutted by tree roots, or just generally run-down. The biggest problem, though, is just that the path is mostly scarcely wide enough for one pedestrian and one bicycle to pass each other. Certainly forget pack riding, forget doing better than walking pace if it’s a nice day because half the city and their dog are using it, and forget riding with the intent of getting good exercise because it’s just too dangerous – to the cyclist and to other users of the path.

  5. It’s hard to actually distinguish the cycleway from the pedestrian part with merely a white line painted on a uniformly looking footpath.

    Pedestrians knowingly and unknowingly wander out onto the cycleway, hindering cyclists, because they have very little space to stroll as there’s heaps of them and their footpath has basically been halved. I think this is a reason why cyclists don’t use the cycleway enough.

    There is a need for more space for pedestrians and a clearer distinction between pedestrian and cycle lanes – different colours for example (http://media.photobucket.com/image/fietspad stoep/itsrainingmen/2007/2007 2008/fietspad.jpg), so that cyclists would actually get off the road and use them.

  6. There are two quite distinct types of cyclists.
    Those who would use a off-road facility such as the one on Tamaki Drive that is really just a wide poorly designed footpath (Eg: Kids, Families, Less confident commuters including my wife), It is a very different environment from the roadway.

    Other cyclists (Eg commuter and training cyclists) using this section of road are being forced to risk. Just look at the pictures, and hear from the motorists. There is more then enough width to provide them a safe on-road facility, that is wide enough to cater for cycle packs. Why are we so obsessed with providing excess space for cars and parking?
    And why do people even park there, other then to go for walk or as part of commuting (so the parks could be relocated)?

    In summary 1) Remove parking, 2) Provide better design facilities, 3) Share the space

  7. Auckland would have to be the most hopeless city in the world when it comes to cycleways. Apart from the excellent new paths in Waitakere- the only proper cycleway we have is the NW motorway one (no, you could not count the 2m shared footpath pictured above). Thats all of old ACC, NSCC and MCC with nothing. What the hell were they doing with rates in those councils?

  8. “The “cycle lane” on Tamaki Drive is in no way up to standard as a road replacement”

    The New Zealand Transport Agency, in their “Pedestrian Planning and design guide”, Page 6-5, shows a photo of the Tamaki Drive path as an example of a segregated shared use path.

    And then subtitles the photo with the text “but substandard width”. Case in point.

  9. “into it you’d find that the majority of car/bike accidents here are caused by the driver of the car.”

    According to NZTA’s own figures, 75% of all car-cycle crashes are caused by the motorist.

    1. Thanks, Ingolfson. Can we conclude from that the 25% of accidents are caused by the cyclist? Or are there some no-fault accidents where neither is to blame?

      1. You can conclude that the cyclist had at least some fault in at least some of the crashes, but as an example this latest one on Tamaki Drive will very likely be recorded as no-fault on the part of the cyclist or the truck driver: the cyclist was forced to take evasive action other than by the truck that ran over her, and doesn’t appear to have been riding recklessly immediately prior. How do you apportion blame?
        There’re studies on LTSA’s site that include the fault attribution for fatal crashes. Most of the ones that weren’t solely “motorist at fault” were a combination, and even many of those were “motorist mostly at fault”.

  10. The cycle lane along Tamaki Drive is not useful for cyclists as it is located between the pedestrian section of the footpath and parked cars (poor design).

    Pedestrians largely ignore the cycle lane (awareness really needed here) and there is cross movement between footpath and cars. Like other cyclists I end up abandoning the lane and heading back to traffic lanes. The poor condition of the lane itself is real but secondary imo.

    I look forward to a tramway along this route to relieve pressure on parking.

  11. The Tamaki drive ‘cycle’ lane was established by painting a dotted white line down the existing footpath and stenciling some bicycle icons on it. This is about as effective as creating a motorway by painting the word ‘motorway’ on a dirt track and putting some 100km/h speed limit signs up.

    IMHO this ‘cycle lane’ was only established to legitimise the popular activities of rollerblading along the promenade, actions that are illegal to do on a footpath but not illegal on a cycle lane.
    I doubt they actually had cyclists in mind when they did that.

    It is crazy, looking here: http://maps.google.com.au/?ie=UTF8&ll=-36.845414,174.82287&spn=0.002971,0.004823&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=-36.845442,174.822774&panoid=FIyuipZTY9oPtk5mS4ketQ&cbp=12,282.64,,0,21.12
    Can anyone see where the cyclists are actually ‘supposed’ to be?

    The answer is: All cyclists in both directions are supposed to share the two foot wide half of the footpath between the kerb and the white line. The bit where that family where their two dogs have stopped to watch the fishermen sitting on the ‘pedestrian’ side of the footpath. I don’t know about other cyclists, but I need a gap a little bigger than one foot wide to cycle in!

    1. It’s not illegal to skate on a footpath. It’s illegal to travel at a “hazardous speed” on a footpath, but not illegal to skate on one. In fact, there’s an offence of “Pedestrian unduly impedes mobility device or wheeled recreational device on footpath” which says that it’s explicitly legal to use in-line skates (which are a “wheeled recreational device”) on a footpath.

  12. To clarify my earlier statement (which I have gotten from the “Safer Journey”s document linked to below – but the data is from NZTA crash records) – the statement should fully read:

    “Cyclists were found to have primary responsibility in only 25 percent of all cyclist-vehicle crashes in which
    they were injured or killed.”

    So yes, some minor fault can be assigned to some of those 75% cyclists. Of course the reverse also applies (i.e. in those 25% of all cases where the cyclists was primarily at fault, there will be quite a few where the motorist will also have contributing fault). In total, thus, the simplified statement “75% of all cyclist accidents are not their fault” is reasonable.

    http://www.transport.govt.nz/saferjourneys/Documents/SaferJourneyStrategy.pdf

  13. The best “macro solution” that should be investigated is to widen the road corridor by re-building the seawall a few metres outwards. An expensive macro type solution for sure, but if we can spend the money on motorways….

    This is exactly what has been done by the Dunedin City Council along a long stretch of Portobello Road on the Otago Peninsula.

    Tamaki drive has many many times the traffic and cyclists that Portobello Road has. The BCR for a project of this type should be excellent.

  14. Asking commuter cyclists to share a 1.8m wide footpath with strolling pedestrians is a grotesquely inadequate level of service for cyclists; dangerous for pedestrians; and dangerous for cyclists (they are still in the way of car doors).

    You can paint whatever marks you like on a footpath, and strolling pedestrians simply will not see them.*

    The road carriageway seems to be about wide enough for one generous traffic lane and one adequate cycle lane each way. The wide median at the corner can be replaced with a knockdownable wire fence if necessary.**

    There is no need whatever for kerbside parking in this area. There is a generous carpark at Kelly Tarltons. There can be a zebra crossing with traffic calming devices for the sailing academy.

    Whoever designed the present deathtrap deserves a BIG rocket. The other examples in the linked 2006 letter from the cycling association are equally damning.

    * Brought home to me when crossing Princes Bridge, St Kilda Rd Melbourne, on a fine Sunday afternoon. The 6 metre wide footpath is carefully marked out ‘cyclists this side, pedestrians that side’. Strollers happily occupied the entire space and cyclists threaded their way among them.

    ** ie the sort that are now being used to replace solid kerbside rails (in Australia, anyway)

  15. I think our unique system of no-fault accident insurance is at least partly to blame. Who was at fault here: The city council who laid out a joke cycle lane. The city council who allowed parking at an accident black spot. The city council who created a choke point by building a median strip. The motorist who opened his or her door without looking. And possibly the truck driver for not being able to stop in time. Who of any of these will be held criminally or financially responsible?… None of them. If this was the States or even Australia then they’d all be facing a sizable law suit by now. That acts as an incentive not to kill people.

    I also think the Police should re-task a few of their road speed revenue collection guys to ride around cities on bicycles with video cameras attached to their helmets. Charging a few people with passing a bicycle too close might improve motorist behaviour.

    1. Given the choice between us developing a US-style tort crapshoot response to the slightest hint of a personal injury, and ACC, I’ll take ACC. It’s infinitely preferable.
      The better solution is driver training, along the lines of the German model (no tutoring except from a professional instructor, tutoring before getting behind the wheel, and heavily-emphasised reminders that driving is a privilege not a right), and mandatory retesting of at least theory (with automatic licence suspension for failure) at every renewal.

    2. Legal action is an interesting idea here — the design of this section of road is clearly very dangerous and was made so by recent council actions. The council were aware of this as the Cycle Action Auckland letter and meeting indicate. While the ACC act means that the cost of personal injury can’t be borne by the council, property damage and exemplary damages could be sought. A relevant article on such claims from Bell Gully starts like this:

      Civil liability for damages in negligence

      The maintenance of roads is divided between various parts of central and local government under various statutes. Councils have statutory powers to build and maintain roads under Part 21 of the Local Government Act 1974, but no obligation to do so.

      Where, however, the council carries out construction or repair of a road, the council is required to take “all sufficient precautions for the general safety of the public and traffic and workmen” (section 353 of the Act).

      The civil liability of councils and their contractors requires careful review in each individual case. Typically, a claim would be in negligence (or possibly nuisance). Actions for damages for personal injury by accident have largely been abolished by the accident compensation statutes.

      Civil liability for councils is therefore limited to liability for damage to property and, possibly, exemplary damages (although the likelihood of that has been further reduced by recent decisions in the Court of Appeal). The question of council liability is further complicated by the use of contractors (including council-controlled organisations) and sub-contractors to carry out the work.

      Assuming, in the case of a road accident, a case were brought in negligence, the plaintiff would need to prove:

      * the existence of a duty of care owed to the plaintiff;
      * a breach of that duty; and
      * resulting harm to the plaintiff.

      1. So the parties who could sue in this case are: the cyclist, the truck driver, a car driver whose car was damaged by the bicycle.
        The cyclist cannot sue, because she’s dead, and the precedent forbidding commencing (as opposed to continuing) torts on behalf of a dead person is old and unchallenged. So that’s out.
        The truck was a rental, so possibly Henderson Rentals has grounds, but it’s unlikely that the truck was actually damaged. There’s possibly the angle of lost revenue while the vehicle’s off the road but that’s hard to prove.
        Were any cars damaged? I didn’t see indications thereof, but it’s possible. Scratches, maybe some panel work, hardly the sort of thing that’s going to see a change to that piece of road.

  16. to sum up> why is there parking on tamaki drive. I noticed just up from kelly tarltons there a designated carpark for buses/cars etc…that is built into th hill..maybe KT had to pay for some earthworks there. Park at Misson bay and walk/skate!

  17. I would suggest that for those cyclists that want to tootle along on their beach cruiser or shepard their kids around on their BMXs, then the existing shared use path is just fine.

    However for any cyclist over the age of 13 they probably want to just cycle like normal, which means on the road and not on a dinky little promenade. Building a dinky big promenade isn’t going to change much.

  18. In Palmerston Nth where I cyled a lot as a uni student generally cycles and cars live well together because the raods are wide enough for lane of traffic + cycle lanes(reasonably wide)+ parking. You just need to make sure car doors don’t open on you…

  19. “Brought home to me when crossing Princes Bridge, St Kilda Rd Melbourne, on a fine Sunday afternoon. The 6 metre wide footpath is carefully marked out ‘cyclists this side, pedestrians that side’. Strollers happily occupied the entire space and cyclists threaded their way among them.”

    Which is why in such areas, you need SEPARATED PATHS. If, for example, you place a kerb between the footpath and the cycle path (with the cycle path on the lower level, but still physically separated from the road), there is a clear cue and a high likelihood that most peds will stay in their section:

    Like this

    http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cycle_Path_to_Southend_-_geograph.org.uk_-_66639.jpg

  20. Idea: Close Tamaki Drive between Ngapipi Rd and at least Mission Bay to ALL personal traffic at the weekend during the summer. Run (free?) buses at frequent intervals, but keep them on the non-sea side of the road. Tow anyone silly enough to leave their car parked overnight Friday. Allow a small exception for people who absolutely need vehicle access to the yacht club. You’d have a vast area for promenading with plenty of space for walkers, cyclists, boarders, bladers, dog walkers, strollers, and whatever other things people like doing. Open the whole length up to jugglers, ice cream sellers, and people doing street theater. But not human statues, who should be banned and persecuted 😉 I think it’d be the coolest place in the country, and much more fun than the CBD.

    1. Obi, like admin I like the idea of temporary (or even recurring) road closures for real life (as opposed to car transport). This is not going to help commuters like the poor dead lass, but it would be great indeed.

  21. Separated paths aren’t very good, unless you are just out riding for fresh air and a nice view. People who cycle for transport and sport want to ride on the roadway, and be treated like any other road user. Marginalising cyclists by trying to shepard them off to some dinky side path won’t really work.

    1. Um, I cycle for transport. I do not really care where I cycle. I would much prefer a separated path, if it presented equivalent quality to the road (good surface quality, sight lines suited to 30 – 50 km/h, cars/pedestrians look before crossing). I do not particularly want to ride on the roadway. As it happens in NZ separated cycleways are often combined with footpaths leading to increased hazards. The only time i have collided with a car on my bike was in the camron road (tauranga) cycle lane. A car pulled out of one of the business driveways and failed to look left or right before crossing (and stopping on the cycle lane) to wait to move on the road. A typical trip along this cycle lane (a couple of km) would involve about 3 cars fail to give way, or stop blocking the bike lane. Fortunately the supermarket carpark exits have good sightlines. In reality only a large number of cyclists (like 1000/hour) will get pedestrians and motorists to respect a footpath style bikelane. There was a segregated bike/pedestrian path that i use to ride every day to school. This path was generally very good as it had no driveways, and (generally) acceptable sight lines and width.

      1. I cycle for transport too Scott, just to clarify (again) by separate path I was meaning the sort of shared footpath you have described, as opposed to fully segregated cycleways.

  22. Most cycling groups consider well-constructed separated cycle paths the gold standard in cycle facilities. Check out the facilities in Copenhagen or New York, for example. Not good for sports cyclists, but excellent for everyone else.

  23. Or check out Sydney perhaps, where they have just spent millions estabishing two-way separated cycle paths that sit empty while cyclists continute to ride on the street like they wanted to do all along.

    As much admired as the Copenhagen model is, it won’t work (as a rule) in NZ due to one important difference. Almost all NZ streets have continuous driveways or vehicle access along the kerb line, while the opposite is true in Copenhagen.

  24. “Separated paths aren’t very good, unless you are just out riding for fresh air and a nice view. People who cycle for transport and sport want to ride on the roadway,”

    You are rarely out west, I would suspect? The Northwestern Cycleway is used well by all three groups – recreational, sports AND commuter cyclists.

    I agree that it would be decidedly difficult to get a similar quality of off-road service on Tamaki Drive, because of the side streets, lack of width and high demands of crossing pedestrians and parking. But there are many places in Auckland where the Northwestern Cycleway success CAN be duplicated. Those being along most of our railway lines and motorways!

    “Almost all NZ streets have continuous driveways or vehicle access along the kerb line, while the opposite is true in Copenhagen.”

    Only half-true. Copenhagen works also because of the fact that pedestrians/cyclists have priority over side roads, and because side roads are often crossed via raised paths, so cars HAVE to slow down (you can’t hoon it across). Off-road paths across driveways also work well enough if they have several meters distance to the boundary line – its not the driveway that is the problem, it is the lack of sightlines when the path is directly against the fence.

    So don’t know it automatically – off-road paths are not the silver bullet, but they have great uses, INCLUDING for faster cyclists.

    1. The other thing to note is that the landward side of Tamaki Drive doesn’t have many driveway or vehicle access points or anything actually, including the lack of a footpath (why would you want to walk on that side anyway of course?)

      Tamaki Drive has fantastic potential to have top notch full separated cycle lanes.

  25. That clearly doesn’t apply around Tamaki drive. And in general, I’m not convinced by your argument as on most busy streets the amount of traffic coming in and out of driveways is minimal. Turning or emerging vehicles could easily stop away from the path if it were well marked and I don’t see that they would provide a greater hazard than it already does to cyclists.

    I’m not advocating separation everywhere (I’m generally one of those cyclists who prefers the speed of roads to cycle paths) but there is a large contingent of people who don’t cycle because of safety reasons. It makes sense to provide good, separated lanes for safety reasons and to encourage these types on busy routes.

    There are also levels of separation — much of Tamaki Drive is quite good now with wide green bike lanes on the edge of the road and even flashing warning signs at Ngapipi road.

  26. Ingolfson, just to clarify I am making a distinction between fully cycleways such as the Northwest cycleway, and separate cycle paths/lanes at street level such as Copenhagen lanes, median lanes and ‘shared’ footpaths. Obviously a full cycleway is ideal but not feasible for the Tamaki Dr corridor.

    You are right I don’t get out west much, as I live in Melbourne. Here they have tried various options in the last year to get cyclists out of general traffic, including Copenhagen lanes in Carlton, two way cycle lanes on one side of the road in St kilda, and a particularly homicidal median lane set up in Clayton. Personally I think each of these approaches has failed because they were based on the premise of physically separating cyclists from general traffic *within the same roadway corridor*. They seem to be doing everything except making on street cycle lanes so that cyclists have room to cycle o the road where (in my experience) 95% of them want to ride.

  27. @ David, yes cyclists are allowed to ride two abreast, but no, they are not allowed to do so if it hinders traffic flow. Tamaki Drive is full of cyclists hindering traffic flow in this manner, and usually so they can talk to each other while riding. How brainless is that? It’s like a motorist talking on a cellphone, while also driving at 20km/h in front of 50km/h traffic! These cyclists do not have safety in mind at all. However, that is an issue separate to this tragic event. But it’s one that should be sorted nevertheless.

  28. It annoys me when people think that when drivers use ‘excuses’ such as ‘they hog the road’ and ‘they ride like maniacs’ because they have an irrational hatred of cyclists. The fact of the matter is that these ‘excuses’ really are reasons to hate cyclists. Cyclists who are in the dangerous position should be the first to showcase their abilities to use the roads safely. A lot of cyclists DO HOG THE ROAD and they DO RIDE LIKE MANIACS and the road to safety starts with them.

    I do hate cyclists on the road for many more reasons than those examples but I have absolutely no problem with cyclists if I can see at least 1 of the following.

    A) Wear normal clothes as it shows that they are a commuter
    B) Have a backpack on their back as it shows that they are a commuter
    C) Are riding a mountain bike or something similar as it shows that they are a commuter and aren’t holding up the road because they think cycling is fashionable.

    I give plenty of room to people that show that they are commuting. The majority of cyclists on the road in my opinion are there because the are jumping on the cycling is fashionable bandwagon. These are the people with the expensive bikes which like to hog the roads. These are the people who don’t follow the road rules, run red lights, pull out in front of traffic without looking, ride in the middle of the road, abuse motorists when the cyclist is to blame, lean on the side of my car when they do feel like stopping at traffic lights.

    I think if you really want to have a dig at motorists for knocking people off their bikes, we should also be looking at the cyclists who knock over pedestrians.

    1. “I think if you really want to have a dig at motorists for knocking people off their bikes, we should also be looking at the cyclists who knock over pedestrians.”

      Tom, fair play, however go and find me a fatal accident involving a cyclist and a pedestrian in NZ. In the last 10 years I only know of one which was in Hamilton circa 2006.

      Last time I checked, fatality count this year between motorists & cyclists – 8 or 9, with that woman in Chch who hit a pole going around a corner not being included.

  29. “How brainless is that? It’s like a motorist talking on a cellphone, while also driving at 20km/h in front of 50km/h traffic! ”

    probably why bicycles and cars operate best when separated.

    since bikes will always loose in collisions.

    when do so-called sport bicycles get to sport in car traffic??

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *