“I couldn’t care less about access to that section when I’m old and doddery, there’s very limited lay-by space and plenty of better alternatives on the Summit Rd.” That you don’t want to visit that section when you’re older and less capable means it doesn’t have much greater significance for you than just your current use of it for physical activities? I have been recreating and taking others up there for 45 years: climbing, walking, biking (I rode the length of it this morning Dyers to Evans), motorbiking, car. I love that whole stretch in all its moods and times and the access it gives to various local spots. I want to travel to it or through it by whatever means I have available or want at the time, just as I always have done.

“How is insisting on motor vehicle access for your exploits not selfish?” This was always a legal road, for vehicles of all types. That a minority of come-latelies is trying to stop me accessing a part of it by vehicle just so they can make their own walk/cycle experience purer really pisses me off.

“There is presently access for all…..” At the moment access is not for all, it is only for those physically fit. Cyclists and walkers are a minority of the greater population, the majority need or simply will choose vehicles.

“….Harry Ell’s vision has nothing to do with motorists who can’t distinguish themselves from their vehicles.” An experience gained by sweat is not necessarily superior to others; what about a tourist? And to put a moral superiority on it — ‘If you can’t walk or bike that 4 km, you don’t deserve to be there’ — is just arrogant; what about an elderly or handicapped person?

Also, re ‘conflicts: Road cyclists are the only main group with significant real conflict with cars. Mountain bikers are served in a partial way (as you have pointed out). Walkers don’t need it because of existing tracks paralleling the road. I acknowledge it is always more pleasant when there are few other people around, but any user wants solitude or lack of competition this can be achieved by picking your times.

I couldn’t care less about access to that section when I’m old and doddery, there’s very limited lay-by space and plenty of better alternatives on the Summit Rd. How is insisting on motor vehicle access for your exploits not selfish?
There is presently access for all, Harry Ell’s vision has nothing to do with motorists who can’t distinguish themselves from their vehicles.

I know how great it is to have a stretch of country to yourself. And not have cars around. I bike too. But that road is a Christchurch institution. It’s selfish to cut off every other user from it who doesn’t or can’t bike or walk. Harry Ell’s vision was access for all, not just the physically fit. When I’m old and doddery, I still want to be able to do that trip, don’t you? Also, the road gives access for other activities. I’ve used that road countless times to access rockclimbing crags on that section with heavy equipment I can’t carry far.

There’s a walking track over Mt Cavendish already, we used this before the section of road below was reopened to walkers and cyclists just before xmas. It’s a slog up the western side walking with a bike and not rideable for anyone but super humans for the most part either way.

“There are already tracks for mountain bikers and walkers along that stretch”
There are two mountain bike tracks (Witch Hill and Castle Rock) that make up less than half that stretch.
Do yourself a favour and park up and walk or cycle it and see how pleasant it is without time pressured motorists using it as a race track.

To make your idea viable would mean at the minimum the creation of a decent large car park at the seaward end (without compromising reserves) as well as extending those available around the Sign of the Kiwi and Sugarloaf. Perhaps monthly/regular no car days/weekends would be an option worth visiting?