With the government is now seemingly on-board with the need for safe urban cycling and Auckland Transport are about to embark on some great new cycling projects. Unfortunately it seems a shadowy group within AT are working to make the few cycle facilities we already have decidedly less safe. This issue has been really highlighted to me with some new cycle lanes I use.

I ride to/from work once a week and my route takes me via Upper Harbour Dr, the road that was formerly a semi-rural state highway until the SH18 motorway opened less than a decade ago. The road still has a speed limit that is a hang-over from its former status of 70km/h and provided little in the way of facilities for walking or cycling. In fact much of the road didn’t even have a footpath requiring people (including school children walking to bus stops) to walk on the road. In short it wasn’t great for any one not in a car but at least the road was fairly wide and importantly yellow lines along its length meant there were never any cars parked. As such it was easy for (most) drivers to give plenty of space. Here’s an example of what the road looked like.

Upper Harbour Before

Given its lack of facilities for walking and cycling and that it is the only route cyclists can use to ride between the North Shore and anywhere else in the region – without taking a ferry, bring on Skypath – AT decided to do something about it. The project was to add a new footpath on one side of the road and cycle lanes on both sides. Due to the speed of vehicles they also proposed those cycle lanes have an extra buffer zone.


The project has been underway for some months and is almost at completion with seemingly the only thing left to do is add a few bike symbols on one side. All good so far but ….

As part the process to install the painted cycle lanes the existing yellow no parking lines were removed. In probably no surprise to anyone pretty quickly the local residents took advantage of this change and cars started appearing parked on the street. At this time the markings for the cycle lane were still going in so I was told by AT to wait till this process was complete.

Fast forward to this week and as mentioned above the project is nearly completed with one side fully marked and the other not far off. Below are just a few examples that of what I’ve encountered on my ride, forcing me and other cyclists out in to the general traffic lane with vehicles going 70km/h – many much faster.

Upper Harbour Cars Parked - 3

Upper Harbour Cars Parked - 4

Upper Harbour Cars Parked - 5

Upper Harbour Cars Parked - 6

There’s something seriously wrong when the process of installing cycle infrastructure leads to a reduction in safety for people on bikes. The problem all stems not from the lanes themselves but the fact that the yellow lines were removed. Like parking on footpaths I suspect many drivers have either forgotten or don’t realise that parking in a cycle lane is illegal. By comparison compliance of yellow lines is very high.

So I asked Auckland Transport for a few comments on why they removed the yellow lines here (and in other cases that I’m aware of), especially seeing as some cycle lanes do also include yellow lines. I’d also heard that the decision not to include yellow lines was made by a group within called the Traffic Control Committee who I understand have to sign off road designs. Here’s their response.

Motorists are not allowed to stop, stand or park in a cycle lane, relevant section is 6.6 of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004.

The requirements for marking cycle lanes are outlined in section 11.2 of the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004. A road controlling authority is not required to install broken yellow line markings to indicate that motorists should not park in cycle lanes. However, Section 12.1 (3) of the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004 does allow a road controlling authority to install broken yellow lines if it deems it necessary.

Some of the legacy Council’s choose to install broken yellow line markings in addition to the cycle lane markings and some did not. This resulted in inconsistencies across the region, in some cases customers believed that if the broken yellow lines were not present they were allowed to park in the cycle lane.

In order to address this issue the Traffic Control Committee issued a directive in December 2014 advising that broken yellow lines should no longer be installed in cycle lanes. Existing broken yellow lines would be allowed to fade and would not be remarked. The purposes of this directive was to try to move the region towards a consistent approach that customers could easily understand.

The Traffic Control Committee consists of the Manager Road Corridor Access, Manager Parking and Enforcement, and Manager Road Corridor Operations. Authority for passing resolutions under bylaws was delegated by the Auckland Transport Board of Directors to the Traffic Control Committee at its meeting of 26 October 2010.

In my view this is group have been negligent and as a result created unsafe environments – ones that will do nothing to encourage more people to ride a bike. It also seems completely at odds with how we treat road safety elsewhere such as actively designing roads to reduce hazards. What’s it all for, saving a little bit on the cost of yellow paint?

Of course AT could always go out and actively enforce the no parking rules however we we’ve seen that is only likely to drivers feeling like they’re being victimised. It also has the potential to create animosity between locals and those on bikes.

Lastly who thinks those buffers would be the perfect place for a few flexi poles or perhaps

Share this


  1. It is more of a matter for parking enforcement than for design. Parking wardens need to issue tickets. In this case because it is new they might be better to either issue a warning for the first month…. or do a quick leaflet drop in the letter boxes on that street (cost about $50) to advise residents that there is now a cycle lane so no parking and a reminder to watch out for bikes. Carrot rather than stick followed by stick afterwards if not adhered to.
    If the speed limit is 70km/h then those bumps would be dangerous as they are designed for lower speeds (sure a car shouldn’t be there in the first place). Should be some kind of physical bump separating the two however.

    1. To be fair the lack of yellow lines is confusing for all. Doesn’t make motorists criminals so the obsession with handing out tickets needs to go. Rules or no rules a quick Q and A round the office showed almost all thought it OK to park if no yellow lines. So either the rules are poorly publicised or to make everyone’s lives simple just apply the yellow paint. What colours are used internationally? Are we confusing tourists too?

        1. Well legally, cycle symbols only need to be marked after each intersection to constitute a valid cycle lane. Best practice usually has them more frequently at ~100m (which is what it looks like in the photos); that’s about 5sec of travel at 70km/h. Not frequent enough?

        2. Mathew these people I work with are not idiots, they are simply not as closely associated with the subject as you may be which probably goes for most people. So if most people dont know then its obviously not as publicised as you think. Please quit with the name calling and ask yourself why it isn’t working? There will be many reasons and I humbly suggest the main one being people simply just dont know. How many signs do you think people see in a km of driving in city streets? If something is ambiguous how does that help?

    2. There was a police car parked in the cycle line in massey along with a bunch of other cars last week. Seems people are just oblivious to it, even the authorities.

  2. That is kind of funny. I agree that since the cycle lane green markings are only intermittent, drivers might not pay attention to the fact that they are parking illegally in a cycle lane. Also, cycle lanes are still a fairly new phenomenon so many (older?) motorists may not be aware of the new rules. I would put the yellow lines back, because everybody knows what they mean, they are easy to spot because they are continuous, and they are consistent warning feature. The older road markings look safer.

  3. One other option would be have a sign at the start of the cycle lane along the lines of “Parking in cycle lanes illegal”, much like the “Keep left unless overtaking” signs on highways. And better enforcement of the law. I for one did not know until now that parking in a cycle lane was illegal.

    I still prefer the yellow line option. It makes it very clear that you cannot park there.

  4. So to fix the problem that people were parking in those cycle lanes that didn’t have yellow lines, they stopped putting yellow lines in any of them?

      1. Somebody please OIA them on the relative cost/benefit of adding yellow lines to all cycle lanes vs removing them. Let’s see proof of decisions made on evidence rather than prejuduce.

      2. I’m pleased to see you use as strong a word as “negligent” in your post Matt.

        It’s about time some of the supposed “experts” who get to make important decisions on behalf of many people get held to account on this kind of stuff. It’s not enough to hide behind a veil of hidden decisions and rely on their reputation and experience when this is the kind of decision that results.

        Given so many people die on our roads – many more every year than died in the 22nd Feb Christchurch ‘quake – it’s pretty outrageous that such decisions are not held to account.

  5. I agree with AT’s decision. It is time that we shift our thinking from “yellow lines = no parking” to “cycle lane = no parking”.

    If we always reply on painting yellow lines on cycle lanes then people will actually never learn they should not park on cycle lanes.

    Engineering alone cannot solve every single problem. AT should spend money on educating people and enforcing the rules when it comes to parking on cycle lanes. Most people who choose to park on top of the cycle lanes do so because they are not aware of the rules and do not know they will be fined.

  6. Ticket the lot of ’em.

    I’m not convinced about poles or those nasty looking bumps in the photo – those look like a hazard to inattentive cyclists.

    A better solution would be a permanent full length curb, effectively creating a cycling lane separate from the road. That would be the only thing that would have me consider my kids riding in that path. Separation from cars – why is it so hard for road designers to understand?

    1. It’s probably not hard for anyone to understand what the best solution should be. In the ideal world we all want to have separated/protected cycle lanes everywhere. But in reality it’s priority and available funding (well, and politics…) that determines the level of interventions.

  7. The problem seems to be the half-heartedness with which they’ve applied green paint. Motorists are like most people and are creatures of habit.

    customers believed that if the broken yellow lines were not present they were allowed to park in the cycle lane.

    White lines with empty space are perfectly legal places to park. Green lanes or yellow lines aren’t. That’s the signalling that people have been consistently been given for decades. But this isn’t solid green, and it isn’t yellow.

    Most people wouldn’t knowingly park in a cycle-only lane. But look at the examples above. How obvious is it that these are cycle only lanes, when the signals given to people are so mixed.

    1. I agree It is confusing when some bike lanes have the yellow no-parking lines and others don’t, and it could easily be interpreted as a ‘shared space’ which might have been set up in an area of low cycling demand. Be consistent so that yellow means no-parking.

      Also on curbing, yes separated lanes are the ideal. But a curb requires a wide bike lane – on a narrow bike lane (some are only 1.5m wide) a small curb is actually quite a dangerous hazard for cyclists,

      1. I’m surprised I had to scroll so far down before I found this. A solid yellow buffer line should stop anyone parking there, and I presume the cost would be the same or similar to using white paint?

  8. Ditch the flush median, drop the speed limit (there is a motorway next door), allow parking on one side of the road, add some physical delineation. Solved. Invoice is in the mail.

    1. The alternative, given the density and lack of use to access shops etc, a protected 2 way on one side and parking on the other side is entirely feasible given the 12m width. It will need a few more road crossings near clusters on driveways but these, using pedestrian refuges would enhance the traffic calming required.

  9. Same issue with 24/7 bus lanes. People just don’t get it, especially ones from out of CBD (my dad lives in Swanson, and he also didn’t know he couldn’t park in a bus lane) – I don’t understand why it’s so hard to convince AT to paint dotted yellow non-stopping line on side of each 24/7 bus lane? Start with Symonds Street, do Fanshawe next and continue on all 24/7 bus lanes!!!

    1. Symonds St is weird in that some parts are marked out as spaces with parking meters (yes parking), some parts have yellow lines (no parking), and some parts have neither (no parking or free parking?) – it’s all too ambiguous.

      If AT want to remove yellow lines from bus/cycle lanes and have them remain no parking this needs to be backed up with parallel publicity and enforcement campaigns.

      1. In addition, MOT should also should consider a different coloured line for clearways – maybe dotted green or red lines to mean clearway.

        1. While we’re at it, we should distinguish between broken yellow lines that are completely no-stopping and those that are just no-parking. Britain and the US, for example, make such a distinction, and it would legalise loading and pickup/dropoff in a lot of situations that are technically illegal (but that everyone does anyway).

  10. The short-term fix to this would certainly be to reinstall yellow no-parking lines. But I agree that the best long-term solution is actually to educate and enforce; the presence or otherwise of no-parking lines doesn’t override the obligations in a legal cycle lane of any stripe. Until people learn this, you will continue to have a problem unless you mark every single bike lane in the city with no-stopping lines as well – pretty expensive solution to a behaviour/education problem.

    The green colour is also a (ahem) red herring because, again, the presence of green colour or not is irrelevant. It is used to help highlight pinch-points (not completely sold on its use to highlight cycle symbols); using it continuously along cycle lanes would (a) be very expensive and (b) make it hard to highlight the true conflict points.

    Sticking a few flexi-posts in the buffer space couldn’t hurt as well to dissuade casual parkers, as well as discouraging drivers from cutting corners (as we’ve done in Chch – http://cyclingchristchurch.co.nz/2015/08/06/return-to-chch-cycle-lane-separators-on-curves/)

  11. I have ridden that road many times without the cycle lane and never had and Issue with cars. There is such little traffic on that road maybe to cost could have been used elsewhere where it is needed.

  12. Such an easy solution. I’m sure quite a few of those parking aren’t aware that it’s illegal and dangerous. Cycling that road is fun and popular. A same it ends/starts in such a dangerous intersection.

  13. Why not add to the “cycle symbol” green patches, (underneath the cycle) an outline shape with A Red Circle with slash through it – indicating in visual form no vehicles.

    Not “No parking” marking along the road side merely “No cars” full stop marking meaning No driving there, no parking there.

    In that example the car is parked right over that symbol so couldn’t claim to have not seen that marking.

    Once they see that every 100 or so metres they’ll get the message.

    Course it won’t stop the trucks using it, but they use yellow lines with impunity too.

  14. Why is it illegal to park in a cycle lane but not in a car lane? I accept that it is but it doesn’t make any sense. How are people expected to know if nobody puts in a marking or a sign?

    1. It is pretty confusing. Put the yellow lines in to make it obvious.
      MOT should also should consider a different coloured line for clearways – having intermittent signs is no where near as good as painted lines. Maybe dotted green or red lines to mean clearway.
      The UK has solid single yellow, solid double yellow and solid double red – I can’t remember what they mean exactly but they seem to work well.

      1. Red is no stopping at all, yellow means you can stop briefly to load/unload or pick up or set down passengers. A single line means the restriction applies during certain times posted on a sign, double lines mean the restriction applies 24/7.


        California has a similar system of red, white and yellow kerbs: red is no stopping, white is pick-up and set-down only, yellow also allows loading.


    2. There’s no such thing as a “car lane”, that’s why. There is a general traffic lane and then there are special vehicle lanes (bus, cycle, high-occupancy-veh); you can’t park in the latter (unless it’s only part-time sometimes).

      1. There is the problem. On Constellation Drive you can park for most of the day in the T2. The whole point is we are supposed to make transport facilities legible to the user rather than send them of to look stuff up. If you mark a kerbside lane for bikes it has the appearance of allowing parking unless there is a sign or a marking otherwise.

        1. Constellation Drive is a mess. Ditch the kerbside parking completely. There aren’t that many spots anyway and there is oodles of off street parking along there. Cycle lanes / bus / lanes and 2 x traffic lanes (2 lanes seems to work fine most of the time).

        2. It is a mess- it should be T2 bothways in the peak. They installed the T2 in the wrong direction as the flow was higher heading for the motorway in the evening. That same old confused thinking that everybody wants to go to the CBD in the morning and away from the CBD in the evening when sometimes the counts show that simply isnt true (or wasnt when it went in)

  15. ” Council’s”. They didn’t really use the grocer’s apostrophe, did they?

    Get the parking wardens out there pronto; there’s some people anxious to pay voluntary taxes.

  16. I don’t think the transport safety authorities in their various guises have quite grasped the fact that PARKED CARS which force cyclists out into the path of OVERTAKING VEHICLES are a serious hazard. Add in the necessity for cyclists to keep well clear of the DOOR ZONE, and the recipe for IMPOSED DANGER is complete.
    (No apologies for the SHOUTING. This is a serious buiness and it is clear from the Upper harbour Drive example that it is not being taken seriously).

    Why are traffic engineers (and, it seems, even cycleway engineers) so slow to catch on to this very basic problem?

    I suspect it is simply this: Since motor traffic is seemingly able to pass parked vehicles with little obvious conflict, no-one has bothered to consider that things might be different for cyclists, despite a grim war-record of cyclists being bowled, doored and flattened under these circumstances.

    Parked cars occupying live road-space have become so ubiquitous and so accepted that little thought is given to the problems this causes. Cyclists are just expected to deal with this themselves somehow, but if they get hit through moving into the path of higher-speed traffic then it’s their own fault.

    A no-win situation here.

  17. I wonder what the legality is, of parking with 2 wheels in the median between the cycle-lane and the road lane, and the remainder of the car in the road lane. It’s not parking in the cycle lane, and it is not blocking the road lane, since there is room to pass on the flush median.

    I think the only sensible thing is to retain the dotted yellow lines, or as suggested above, every so often in the cycle lane, add car outlines within a circle with a slash across them.

    1. Thats the question some should ask AT, is it legal to park adjacent to the cycleway?,
      I cannot see any reason it would not be, there are no markings to indicate that there is no parking on the absolute left of the car lane (Just that you cannot park in the cycle lane)

      IIf they cannot point to the law that says this is illegal, then they need to put in some yellow lines, (but this is to solve a non-cycle parking issue, although it would kill two birds)

      1. Brilliant. That would actually work with the mindset of these clowns. And the notion of motorised vehicles having to swerve into the painted median will persuade their colleagues.

        Can someone set up a demonstration of this and film it? (Possibly best use a cheaper car/van you don’t mind being totalled, but).

        Then film the same manoevre with a bike around a vehicle parked across the cycle lane.

        Publicise both clips.

      2. Well funnily enough they have just put yellow lines on the car side of the cycle lanes heading east down Carlton Gore Rd.

  18. Every time anyone cycles along here, photo every single car parked in the cycle lane and email the photos to Auckland transport. Do this often enough and they will get so sick of dealing with the emails that they will do something about it. Being persistent and annoying is often the only way things will change.
    Sincerely, a Council employee (not auckland).

  19. Well Stranded on the North Shore, I’m a bit like your father and got caught at nearly 9a, when they introduced the bus lanes a few years back, and I haven’t had the problem since. So I believe that enforcement is the solution and a good education tool. I think its the best way for us to learn these things.

  20. Any car parked in the lane should be towed. Tickets will help reduce my rates bill. Complaints to the media will be the best publicity possible.

  21. Don’t you love the way the bureaucratic response manages to run for 300 words without addressing the question.
    Citizen: ‘You’ve done something that makes things less safe.’
    Bureaucrat: Background, context, history blah blah blah…
    Citizen: ‘But it makes things less safe.’
    Bureaucrat: Decision of the such-and-such committee blah blah blah consistent approach blah blah blah.
    Citizen: ‘But it makes things LES SAFE!’
    The bureaucrat is entirely focussed on self-justification and seems not at all interested in whether the measure has actually made things less safe.

  22. Bureaucrat wants to teach people that parking in cycle lanes is never allowed. Noble goal – but how many cyclists must be sacrificed on the altar of consistency, doored or rear-ended while passing a parked car on roads like this one, in the 20 years or so that it will take for everyone to learn?
    Maybe it’s better just to acknowledge human frailty – many people get confused and don’t know that there are places where you can’t park even though there are no yellow lines.
    For their sake, keep it simple. Yellow lines = no parking. Cycle markings = carriageway for cyclists. They’re different concepts. Where both apply, do both.

    1. Indeed.

      If this was a railway hazard which had somehow become apparent and was found to cause regular accidents, injury and fatalities, chances are all services would be grounded until an effective fix was applied.

      Not so on the roads, where a shrug of the bureaucratic shoulders is considered a sufficient response.

  23. We have a similar problem here in Mount Albert, except it’s not just people parking in the cycle lane (which DOES have faded broken yellow lines), but people using the cycle lane as a queue for a left hand turn. The congestion gets reasonably bad in peak times, so cars queue on the left hand side of St Lukes Road trying to get onto the N/W, but they assume they can just use the cyclelane to do this. The queue extends back up to a km, which is actually the whole length of the cycle lane from the intersection with Asquith Avenue.
    http://imgur.com/UJ9sfip <– here's a picture of the situation, the white lines on the right of the picture are actually defining a cycle lane. Unfortunately motorists I've spoken with seem to just think "but if I don't pull into the cycle lane, I block the road when I'm waiting to turn", without perhaps sensing the irony in the statement.

    1. We had the same problem on Central Park Dr in Massey. After several years of regularly asking for flexible bollards to be installed, they finally were and problem solved. They were reluctant to and tried signs and warnings, all a complete waste of time. a physical barrier is the only thing that works. Go on the AT website and report a problem. Do it every month and you might get a result. Mention it worked for Central Park Dr.

  24. I both cycle and drive that road regularly. The changes made were an unnecessary waste of money. The road was wide enough for safe cycling already.
    Not only has the new lane introduced the additional hazard described but the narrowing of the road at the Albany highway end has also created additional traffic jams at peak hour. A complete waste of money that would have been better spent elsewhere making cycle lanes where they really are needed.

  25. I think an Auckland (or even country wide) educational campaign on TV, radio, paper & social media is needed around this area. Thinking it should done in a positive light with encouraging cycling use and advertising new trails/lanes in your area and the importance of drivers to look out for cyclists and making it clear not to park in cycle lanes would do the trick. Cycle lanes were so scarce in Auckland a while ago that people, and probably more the older generation(?), are not used to them or cyclists in a big way so this is important not just for safety but general respect for them on the road as a equally valid user. Could also do shared spaces while they are at it perhaps. Point out the benefits so it doesn’t end up this me vs you thing. TV/paper would hit the older generation better than some of the other media? Any funds in the cycle fund for this?

    1. I think the major problem with it was that they expected that they could just slap some white paint on the road and expect that motorists would know what to do. This is what they look like in Holland https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/eb/Fietsstrook_Herenweg_Oudorp.jpg it’s not just white paint, the lanes are different colours. But also there is a whole lot of education that the dutch have already had, and know what to expect. This was kind of dropped on the community by the sounds of it. That said it was an experiment, it didn’t work, they removed it and hopefully they’ll look at other solutions.

      1. Note also that, contrary to what the Fairfax articles imply, there were plenty of signs explaining it ahead of the two trial sections, so it wasn’t a complete mystery to approaching drivers. But evidently they still needed to shout it from the rooftops more than they did. Coloured surfacing is a bit irrelevant too (especially for a low-cost trial), I hardly think that would have made it any less confusing for an unaware motorist faced with a single traffic lane.

        BTW, your photo shows an urban fietsstrook, but this was research into rural cycling safety options where 60km/h ones are very common in rural Netherlands. Given the number of narrow, low-volume rural roads in NZ, this is exactly the kind of cost-effective solution we should be looking at.

        1. Well it was selected for research purposes, but with <1000 vehs/day it seems perfectly appropriate for a trial like this. And with thousands of kms of quiet narrow rural roads like this in NZ, there is no way that we will be spending billions to put a path on every one – we will save that for the more deserving busier ones. The Dutch don't spend all their money on separate paths for every quiet road either; they do this treatment instead.

      2. ‘I think the major problem with it was that they expected that they could just slap some white paint on the road….’

        I think the major problem with it was that it is a fucking stupid idea.

        1. Well the Netherlands has what 4 times fewer deaths per capita, and they have far fewer crashes on these roads than us, but sure less safe.

        2. Well good for them. Then import it into a country that shares very little in road layout or cycling culture or driving culture and declare it will be ‘more safe’. Dumb.

  26. Well it doesn’t help when everyone in the area needs a car, the new network proposes peak only service for that area of upper harbour drive. But sure, 99% of the houses there have tons of driveway space, don’t see why they need to park on the road.

    1. Well, half of it does. A low density rural road with service within 1km of all households all day? Sounds good!!

      1. I guess its not too bad, a bit better than the current situation, though lets hope the new W5 doesn’t get as held up as the 130 does or the locals might miss the locally starting 956 route.

  27. Funny, if there was any road not needing a special lane for cycles in the entire region I couldn’t think of it.

    Waste of paint.

    1. You would have let your eight year old daughter cycle to a friend’s house on the previous layout?


      Then it needed work.

        1. I wouldn’t let a hypothetical child out there either, still needs work. Luckily what it needs is the easiest part to do.

        2. I didn’t get a bike ’till I was 10.

          But to answer the question, I wouldn’t let her ride the new paint either.

        3. I can’t really see me letting my 8 year old out on any 70km/hr road anywhere, irrespective of how much paint has been applied to it. I stand by my comment about it’s previous paint. It is not a road I have ever felt unsafe on and the additions made have not made any difference in that regard.

          I’d rather have seen the budget spent on pinch points elsewhere – for example Wairau Road – which is lethal in places.

        4. So you admit that you wouldn’t have let your daughter ride on the old layout, therefore it wasn’t safe and was a worthy place to fund some improvements. We all realise that the improvements weren’t safe and that it should have been fully separated lanes and a reduction in the speed limit.

        5. If you think we have enough money to make all roads safe for your 8to80 nonsense you’re barking mad.

        6. Lol righto. So can I assume that if you’re rolling them out to all ages you’ll be rolling them out to all areas to?

        7. The University of Auckland suggested $600m to do the entire city in their study, or less than 1/3 of one years transport capex in Auckland.

          We could do the entire city for less than Puhoi to Warkworth motorway.

        8. City or region? When are they starting mine? Before or after they seal it? Do you even have any concept of the extent of Auckland?

        9. I clearly stated city. Not a lot of point sealing or building a cycle lane on a rural access road with less than 100 vpd.

        10. How about those getting up to 300 a day? Would that be enough? How much is enough? Is there a number that would be enough for you? Seems unlikely.
          But how many 8 to, um, lets say13(?) kids are predicted to use a child proof lane on the road above? 5?

        11. We can’t necessarily go on how many are using it now. For instance, I’d say NNR is not a particularly busy road for anyone other than the 1% of dead keen road warriors but what could it bring if we raised it to Dutch standards? There are local schools and thousands of residents along the way and nearby. Once someone feels safe enough to ride to the shops for milk, what next?

        12. As part of a city wide cycle network I would imagine 1000s of people, there are already 100s of people every day.

          Sealing should go in the pot like all projects, figure out a threshold that makes funding worthwhile and seal once it gets over that. Would probably be of the order of 1,000 trips a day or so I guess.

  28. I wouldn’t let ’em out on a 50km/h road. It’s not the road that’s gives me the shits, it’s the crap level of driving. No amount of paint or weird bumps or even kerbs will help in that regard.

    1. The next question to that is: Why are all of our suburban roads designed for 50 km/h traffic when it is proven that residential areas with traffic calming, filtered throughways for bikes and walking (but not motor vehicles) allow safe on-road riding?

  29. So basically a no through road with a fancy name.

    And you’re going to apply that to this road how exactly?

    Also, is a cul-de-sac a permafilter thingy?

      1. Oh, right I see. So in an urban setting that doesn’t look like too big a deal or even that expensive.

        But that’s the easy part right? How do you make the road above and every other road in the region safe for 8-80s?

        1. The arterials get a bit more difficult and therefore need cycle paths, which cost of course. We start with the obvious connectors and work outwars from there. Every time a road gets upgraded, we should be upgrading any cycling facilities to international best practice, keeping the context of the corridor in mind.

  30. Well, I live on Upper Harbour Drive, and I am more than a little pissed off about the cycle lanes removing parking from both sides of the road I live on.
    Cyclist safety could have been handled in other ways that wouldn’t have had such a negative impact on residents.
    The not terribly busy road could have had it’s speed limit reduced to 50. The cycle lane could have been a clearway of sorts so during rush hour cycle lane, off peak, parking available to residents and their visitors.
    The council could have also installed parking bays in the berm, which is wide enough in a lot of places. Or the footpath could have been made considerably wider allowing room for a tandem footpath/cycle lane and keeping on-street parking.

    1. Very little of the road didn’t already have yellow no parking lines so not much parking at all was affected. As for clearways, what about if someone wants to ride outside of the clearway time, it’s ok to put their lives at risk so someone can park a car? As for shared paths, they are a bad solution in almost all situations.

    2. Go troll somewhere else, if you didn’t know that there was no parking before then you are obviously lying about being a resident.

      1. Sailor I think your comment is too harsh. Please keep it more civil, having a different view does not amount to trolling, and better to refute the argument than to make accusations of lying.

        1. I completely disagree that it is better to refute the argument. This is clearly trolling and one should never feed the troll.

      2. I don’t think she is lying and I don’t think she’s a troll, certainly not based on a single comment such as above.
        As I said in my comment very little of the road didn’t have yellow lines but that’s not the same as the entire road had yellow lines. There were definitely parts that didn’t and where occasionally there would be cars parked.

        1. “had such a negative impact on residents” subtle hyperbole.
          “The not terribly busy road” diminishment of issue at hand.
          “The cycle lane could have been a clearway of sorts so during rush hour cycle lane, off peak, parking available to residents and their visitors” proposition of completely inappropriate solution.
          “The council could have also installed parking bays in the berm, which is wide enough in a lot of places”, ” Or the footpath could have been made considerably wider allowing room for a tandem footpath/cycle lane and keeping on-street parking” same thing again.

          These are classic trolling tactics. You set up a lot to argue that has already been covered, often in an article itself to lead people around in circles, distracting them from more productive discussion. The less junior commenters (30+) on this website are really bad at picking it up and dismissing it quickly (possibly from not having had the majority of their life lived with trolls). Anyway, this one has had enough attention.

Leave a Reply

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