Comments on: It’s Not Just Infrastructure Stupid – Part 1

By: David Moorhouse

David Moorhouse — Sun, 08 Mar 2015 06:32:17 +0000

Unfortunately more of the same “cyclists & pedestrians give way to motorists” arrogance on the Harper Ave cycle path for Te Matatini over the five days. A real shame that the message is not getting through to event planners.

By: Emily

Emily — Wed, 14 Jan 2015 01:11:54 +0000

In reply to CP. By contrast I was in Auckland last year (Not a city I immediately associate with great cycling infrastructure). They are upgrading the NW motorway which has a cycleway alongside it. Not only was the cycleway not just used as a convenient place to put road signs but they have ensured that the cycleway is usable during the entire upgrade. - they actually view it as an important part of their roading infrastructure. Two thumbs up! If only this happened more often.

By: Jack

Jack — Tue, 13 Jan 2015 03:33:22 +0000

I agree that it is a matter of principle. One of reality is that while we may want something, most people don’t want to think about how to get it, so that something becomes a not-so-distant dream that gets talked about and forgotten in a few years.
I feel the traffic management sometimes is about making sure the majority of the users are happy. As it stands people that ride bikes are still comparative rare to see, so the consideration seems to be tick the box and move on.
The quality of the cycling culture and the positive riding vibes will need to be looked at in parallel with infrastructure. It’s very easy to be infrastructure and safety focused and neglect the “soft-science” of cycling.

By: Alastair Brown

Alastair Brown — Mon, 12 Jan 2015 20:43:23 +0000

That sign could be improved with a plasma cutter and a pop riveter.

By: John

John — Sun, 11 Jan 2015 23:03:58 +0000

It is deeply offensive to me to have the cricket there at all Hagley Park is a public space not a sports ground for rent – but anyway,the Resource Consent for the cricket requires a traffic management plan and the traffic management plan requires “Alternative means of access would be encouraged, particularly by cycle and bus.”

So, if anybody cared – it seems to me that they are in breach of their resource consent to encourage cars at the expense of cycles.

By: CP

CP — Sun, 11 Jan 2015 20:39:26 +0000

In reply to Roadie Rick. I agree. Must be next to impossible for them to please all road users however frequently it seems they're entirely focused on the motor vehicles & neglect cyclists & pedestrians. Often the 'caution cyclists merging ahead' sign is more into the road than the actual merge later on!

By: Roadie Rick

Roadie Rick — Sun, 11 Jan 2015 08:29:19 +0000

I have noticed that so called stms qualified people have absolutely no idea about cyclists. As an example for the Coast to Coast race the stms guys decided that the correct place for the cycle event signs was to block the marked cycle lanes in both directions on ferrymead bridge. I talked to the stms guy and he was adamant that the traffic would not see the sign if it was moved one metre out of the cycle lane. I would love to know what they are “taught” to be qualified as a stms person.

By: rob5chch6

rob5chch6 — Sun, 11 Jan 2015 06:03:07 +0000

Time to put heads together and do some creative thinking. In the UK some events and attractions offer an entry discount to those who arrive by walk,bike,bus,train. Why not here ? . It is not about favouritism it is about good traffic managment, limiting environmental damage and having to avoid the expense of catering for more and more vehicles. All interests including Park Management, events personnel CCC, public transport providers and cycle groups need to sit down and work out a plan that will work for everyone.