Before you go off on holiday, we need your help to save the new street and town upgrade in Grey Lynn, and bike lanes everywhere….

TAKE 30 SECONDS TO SAVE OUR SAFE STREETS

Last year, you and 1200 people like you helped us support making Grey Lynn a calmer, more pleasant place to be. Together we showed that residents want more crossings, safer bike routes, and calmer streets.

Now that construction is under way a small group of angry protesters are using divisive tactics to try and stop this project altogether – and all cycleways, all over Auckland. They may have already delayed the project so it won’t be ready when kids go back to school in February.

That’s not fair. On a route that’s home to several primary schools and thousands of families, as well as a key link in the growing bike network, it’s unacceptable.

LET AUCKLAND TRANSPORT AND THE LOCAL BOARD KNOW IT NEEDS TO BE BETTER

Luckily, Auckland Transport is listening, and is working with the Local Board, businesses, and local stakeholders to make positive changes.

Why is this so important?

Because Grey Lynn is poised to be a model for the future we all want: a beautiful, green, walkable and bikeable neighbourhood where getting around and crossing the street is easy for everyone.

If Auckland Transport can get this one right they can get it right everywhere. But if the protesters get their way, it sets a dangerous precedent.

So what’s the problem?

Unfortunately, a small group of anti-change campaigners have ‘occupied’ a traffic island and taken over the machinery, with the goal of stopping any further bike path construction in Grey Lynn – and right across Auckland. Really. They’re the same people who opposed the Unitary Plan and other reasonable projects our city desperately needs. It would be a tragedy if this lot were to get their way and control how Auckland’s streets look in the 21st century.

Because their voices have been so loud and dominant, they’ve created delay on the construction of the routes all the way from the city to Pt Chev, and are attempting to hold the city’s entire bike network to ransom. This is alarming.

Whats all the fuss about?

Let’s be clear: the design should be better in places. Parts of the upgrade are great: curb extensions make it a far more inviting place to walk, there’s a new roundabout at what was a scary intersection, and the new pedestrian crossings was much needed. We need to make sure they stay.

But the cycle path design was compromised from the get-go – mainly to try to preserve as much parking as possible. In some cases it lacks the full separation originally proposed, especially at intersections. That sucks.

Change is challenging, and some people like things to stay the way they are. ‘Bikelash’ happens all over the world. It’s a sign of progress, as cities reshape their public spaces to better suit all citizens, young and old, and to help get us towards the kind of world we want to live in.
The only way we know to combat fear-driven bikelash is to be more positive, more committed, and to share the facts. The evidence is incontrovertible that bike-friendly cities are more sustainable, good for business, healthier for people, and generally nicer to live in.

We need your help to show AT you care.

The good news: the businesses of West Lynn are working in good faith with the Local Board and Auckland Transport to fix the section through the village.

We also know the overall cycleway design is being reviewed to make sure it’s even safer and more welcoming than before.

Now is an opportunity for AT and the Local Board to hear what the community really wants, which, for example, is:

And:

And:

Please take 30 seconds to send a message loud and clear that a handful of disaffected people don’t speak for you.

Thank you, for supporting this, and all of our work 2017. Every year we move closer to the modern, safe and low carbon city we deserve, and that’s all thanks to you.

Share this

19 comments

  1. Penny Bright is trying to troll me into fighting her on Twitter. 😀 These people argue in bad faith, they just want to play “gotcha” and have no interest in engaging with opposing point of view. Arguing with them is like wrestling a pig, or chess with a pigeon. All they want to do is to yell words that make their followers angry about something-anything, because they love having followers, and they use words for the same purpose as chimps use handfuls of their own feces.

    Do not give them the unearned compliment of treating them like they were trying to have an actual political debate. Boycott, ostracise, quarantine.

  2. Too bad about the businesses that are suffering. They have families to support.
    Some of these bike lanes are useless, like the one on Puhinui Road for example, which hardly anyone uses.

    1. And some roads are useless, as are some comments. What’s your point?

      General experience suggests that bicycle lanes in central, dense urban areas such as Grey Lynn are relatively well-used. And given the growth that we’re seeing in cycling numbers the,y will be even better used in the future.

  3. Tell her to pay her rates and not be a drag on reasonable people. And if you need to, tell her that over and over. It won’t win you the argument, but it will probably make you feel better.

    I suspect that she has what is called a “high conflict personality” and so she loves to fight. Of course if she gives in she will no longer have this fight at least. Once you understand what she’s like then you know what is likely to happen. She will only stop fighting once someone has made a decision that she can’t fight against. You just need to ensure that you prevent a well reasoned argument to influence the decision. Loud, aggressive, stupid arguments generally only convince the timid or the stupid, or of course both.

    1. It is Penny Bright’s job to be a political activist. That is what she does. She is a redundant welding tutor with nothing else to do.

  4. How ironic a member of the privileged cycling community would describe opposition as “angry protesters” are people who are “anti-change'”. This is typical of the bullying applied to anyone who opposes left wing minority groups like the Auckland cycling community.

    I happened to walk past the cycling counter in downtown Auckland today just after 5pm. On a beautiful day which was perfect for cycling just 841 cyclists had used the lane in the entire day. That’s a pathetic number. The normal response we get is some jargon about the network effect and if only there was one more cycle lane which would bring non-existent cyclists into the network.

    The facts are cyclist deaths have increased this year by close to 300%. This blog likes to go on and on about road deaths yet completely ignores cyclists being killed and maimed by changes this blog continues to advocate.

    As our society wakes up to the fact our cycling community is all about themselves and not for the advancement of society look for more opposition to projects like this.

    1. The increase in cyclist deaths has mainly involved trucks, or cars at speed, out of the main centres, where cyclelanes don’t exist. If TRM was concerned about cyclist deaths, he would be campaigning with us for better cycleways, lower speeds and separation of trucks from general traffic. Instead, he is happy to slang about threats which kill:

      In the post Bikexplosion, there was a discussion about how in general things are improving for cyclists, with more drivers expecting to see cyclists, but there are pockets of aggression.

      TRM’s response was: “Reading 10 whingy cyclists in the comments section is enough to make any driver want to buzz a cyclist.” Let’s unpack that.

      1/ First TRM interpreted a valid, short discussion about driver aggression as whingy.
      2/ Then he extrapolated his disagreement with those commenters to any cyclist a driver might come across. Otherwise known as Prejudice.
      3/ Then he expressed understanding for drivers who would want to convert this prejudice against all cyclists into an aggressive use of their car as a lethal weapon.

      Here is the bully.

      1. Heidi, a typically myopic response from a contributor who regularly exhibits keyboard diarrhea.

        Have you noticed the words multi-modal aren’t used on this blog any more? This blog has transformed into nothing more than whinge central for the entitled. Transport needs to be looked at as a whole and all modes should be considered. The current approach is to induce traffic congestion at every available opportunity to make life slightly easier for fortunate inner city residents.

        Cycling has it’s place in our society but that place is not everywhere and anywhere. The cycling community, aided by a leaderless council are bullying communities into accepting “solutions” that are impractical for the needs of each community.

        As a result of these changes cyclists have developed a superiority mentality which is getting them killed. Cyclists don’t think road rules apply to them, don’t share the road in shared zoned and treat pedestrians like a road-killed possum. The very same people then try to demand respect from everyone else without earning it and manage to get millions of dollars directed into their chosen method of transport.

        We’ve never had so much cycling infrastructure yet the blinded continue to call for more cycling infrastructure as cyclists find new ways to get themselves killed. It’s the classic “one more cycle lane” mentality. If only there was more “safe” cycle lane more cyclists would magically appear and they’d be safe.

        Well we are building more cycling infrastructure, the numbers aren’t exploding and more cyclists are being killed and maimed. You continue with your failed ideology. I will stick to the evidence.

        1. @ Real Matthew: “Cyclists don’t think road rules apply to them, don’t share the road in shared zoned and treat pedestrians like a road-killed possum”.

          Are you a cyclist Matthew? If not, how then can you claim to know how “cyclists think”? You only think you know how cyclists think. And you apparently think they are all members of a single homogeneous, arrogant, entitled grouping who in your view must all think alike.

          Are you a motorist Matthew? If so, do you think as all other motorists do? You know, that single homogeneous group of identical, arrogant entitled petrolheads who don’t think road rules apply to them, don’t share the road in shared zones and treat pedestrians like a road-killed possum?

          Has it occurred to you that many cyclists use cars as well? Can you comprehend that it may be possible for a person to belong to both of these groupings that you imply must be polar-opposite and mutually-exclusive? And that it may even be possible for a car-user to consider that cycling should be better-provided for and given a greater share of the transport-budget which has for too long been skewed towards providing for cars only?

          Or maybe you, Matthew, are the one with the blinkers on.

        2. You asshole, you demeaning asshole. These are people, actual human beings, being killed. Someone’s mother or father, brother, sister, work colleague yet you treat their deaths as many would a possum on the side of the road. Get a grip. And some sense of decency.

          1. And not multi-modal? How is adding cycle lanes and improved bus stops to a street while keeping the traffic lanes and parking not the very definition of multimodal?

    2. “This blog likes to go on and on about road deaths yet completely ignores cyclists being killed and maimed by changes this blog continues to advocate.”

      Ok, so how many cycle deaths have occurred on the cycleways and protected cycle lanes that are advocated for?

      Because from what I can tell the deaths in Auckland occurred on poorly designed roads that disregard any road users except for private vehicle drivers, precisely the opposite of what this blog advocates.

      1. As someone who monitors all cycle fatalities, I can tell you that in the past three years NOT ONE of the cycling fatalities has occurred on a protected cycleway. One occurred on an on-road cycle lane at an intersection where a left-turning truck ran over the rider, and two occurred on unprotected pathways next to a road where the rider fell into the path of a truck.

        It’s also pertinent to point out that providing improved cycling facilities won’t get rid of cycling injuries or deaths, it will just make your relative risk a lot better. The Netherlands, the much-touted cycling nirvana, still has 180 cycling fatalities a year, simply because it has so many cycle trips (10 times per capita vs NZ). But the relative risk per km ridden is about 1/3 that of NZ.

  5. We have a fundamental issue.

    We do not debate the structural requirements of a building or a dam. They have to meet the requirements of the design code.

    However, here we are yet again debating the design code for a transport facility.

    It is very clear that cyclist have a legal right to use this road (along with all other roads except motorways).

    Overseas experience + NZ experience as noted by Glen above clearly indicate that protected cycleways are much safer. A NZ design code should require them. It should not be up for debate.

    If NZ wants to get serious about vision zero its time for the guidelines to go and a legally binding design code be implemented.

    1. The key difference between a building or dam vs a roadway is that the former don’t have to contend with humans operating within them affecting their integrity and safety; their primary challenge is against basic physics of materials. So it is much easier to develop a design code for these structures because the ‘apply stress, get strain’ response is much more predictable.

      For these reasons, you will tend to find that even the best Vision Zero countries don’t apply strict road design codes, because every situation is different. They just do a better job of ensuring that safety is prioritised over things like efficiency in the final design.

Leave a Reply