Comments on: Another look at Auckland: Shared Paths https://cyclingchristchurch.co.nz/2016/04/23/another-look-at-auckland-shared-paths/ Regular people riding bicycles Thu, 23 Apr 2026 11:57:40 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.4 By: uk_exile https://cyclingchristchurch.co.nz/2016/04/23/another-look-at-auckland-shared-paths/#comment-1610 Mon, 25 Apr 2016 21:38:56 +0000 http://cyclingchristchurch.co.nz/?p=9515#comment-1610 Any signage or symbols must be very clear, frequent, consistent and maintained. There needs to be enough of them that the majority of people begin to comply with their intent, then the minority will feel the cultural pressure to follow the behaviours of others. Becomes win win for pedestrians and cyclists.
Presently most Chch routes fail in frequency or maintenance of signs, symbols or other infrastructure. The painted surface symbols don’t seem to last very long and aren’t repainted often enough. The divider posts seem to disappear within weeks and take months to be replaced. Green surfacing appears, new posts then shortly after the road gets resurfaced and it’s back to plain black, no posts and maybe a white line!

]]> By: Stephen https://cyclingchristchurch.co.nz/2016/04/23/another-look-at-auckland-shared-paths/#comment-1609 Mon, 25 Apr 2016 04:40:24 +0000 http://cyclingchristchurch.co.nz/?p=9515#comment-1609 Those signs are terrible.

I don’t think they’re too abstract, exactly: the white paint pictograms in the top picture are simpler, more abstract, and yet more comprehensible. The problem with these slightly more detailed pictures is that the relationships between the symbols aren’t immediately clear.

It looks as though someone has been inspired by the visual language of icons in a GUI, and forgotten that you can’t interact with paint to get more information. An aesthetic success, perhaps, but a semiotic failure.

]]>