Comments on: Cycling Road Rules getting a shake-up

By: Errol Brocklehurst

Errol Brocklehurst — Mon, 05 Sep 2016 00:08:25 +0000

Forget changing laws, just teach both cycles and car users how to work with each other. I’ve biked many roads in the north island and found truck drivers would watch for cycles, cars do not. It is the same down here cars are blind to cyclists as some cyclists are blind to cars. Weather on a cycle way or road you must first learn how to use it. Teach at schools, via papers.
And to everyone reading this share to road.

Old Cyclist.

By: Gary Kearns

Gary Kearns — Mon, 01 Aug 2016 13:55:38 +0000

Some of the ideas being looked at have been common practice among cyclists for years. It’s good to see a pro active approach rather than a punitive one. Free top of the T and left turn on a red has been a long time coming. Also lane splitting. The legality of lane splitting needs to be seriously looked at for motorcycles too.

By: Rich

Rich — Mon, 01 Aug 2016 07:04:34 +0000

I like the idea of the left turn and top of the T intersection exemption and giving way to cyclists and pedestrians across side roads. Lane splitting, undertaking and using left turn lane to go straight ahead should definitely be formalised, given that it happens already. Should also allow cyclists to go through pedestrian crossing signals at walking pace, giving way to pedestrians. If we’re allowed to cycle with pedestrians with care on shared paths, why not on pedestrian lights? You feel like a goody-two-shoes if you stop at pedestrian only lights, for no other reason than to appease motorists, or motorists hate you if you go through.

By: Roy Sinclair

Roy Sinclair — Mon, 01 Aug 2016 03:11:08 +0000

An excellent load of common sense all round. Hope amendments are formulated.

By: Ayr

Ayr — Fri, 29 Jul 2016 05:55:26 +0000

Can the undertaking and lane splitting rules also be altered for motorcycles

By: LennyBoy

LennyBoy — Wed, 27 Jul 2016 04:05:37 +0000

In reply to Chris Werry. To clarify, the situation I was discussing is what WOULD happen if the proposed redefinition of "intersection" took place. At the moment, a pathway crossing a road is NOT an intersection, so the right-hand rule doesn't apply. Technically, GIVE WAY signs and the like at crossings aren't enforceable either (although I think Nelson did theirs by bylaw), which is why the proposed Rule changes also tidy up this situation.

By: Chris Werry

Chris Werry — Wed, 27 Jul 2016 02:54:02 +0000

In reply to LennyBoy.

And legalises https://www.google.co.nz/maps/@-41.3048154,173.2374984,3a,75y,84.2h,65.21t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swT28slZUR3xNwXjg7oBOHw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1

By: Chris Werry

Chris Werry — Wed, 27 Jul 2016 02:49:49 +0000

In reply to LennyBoy.

Which is presumably why the cycle way stops and starts either side of the road here: https://www.google.co.nz/maps/@-36.8125017,174.7811075,3a,75y,45.82h,68.67t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJG0nvKyGXhKD9WQbs4ZXlg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

By: LennyBoy

LennyBoy — Tue, 26 Jul 2016 23:47:00 +0000

In reply to Chris Werry. Good spotting! In that situation, the relevant part of Rule 4.2(3) would appear to apply, just like an uncontrolled (no signs) intersection. This may not be very obvious to all users however (especially motorists), so the onus is probably on the road controlling authority to put up some suitable signs to indicate who has priority.

By: Chris Werry

Chris Werry — Tue, 26 Jul 2016 23:10:54 +0000

If a cycle path or shared path crosses a roadway and has the intersection has no give way or stop signs does the right had rule apply? Does this mean motorists at a road / cycleway cross road need to give way to cyclists arriving from the cycle way on their the right hand side?