Firstly - Tom - great post - thank you!

I'm a Wellington cyclist and a Wellington motorist, and to be honest, I can see both sides of the argument - the problem is that the issue of cyclists using the roads evokes such strong reaction from everyone involved.

I agree that a huge number of the streets around Wellington are just plainly not suitable for anything other than single file. It annoys me to see cyclists bunch riding in these areas but it also annoys me when I am cycling (often on my own) and meet up with motorists who hang off their horn, or overtake in a dangerous manner all for the sake of a few seconds. I, and a lot of other cyclists I know, do actually make an effort to get out of the way - but we can't make gaps appear out of thin air AND motorists need to keep in mind that if a car door suddenly opens onto us, there is a chance that we could end up under their car if they follow or overtake too closely.

In terms of cyclists running red lights - I have seen this happen a few times but not often. I've never witnessed it where it caused a cyclist to cross traffic/side streets etc (e.g. where the road continues onward). Not ideal or legal, but yes, it does happen. Unfortunately, the rest of us bear the brunt of the fall out from this type of thing.

Oriental Bay - is just plain dangerous - but this isn't due to the speed limit, its due to the car parking but the parking is needed, so a better way to deal with this needs to be found.

The pathway around Oriental Bay is multi use. When using it as a footpath, there are occasions where I have almost been hit by a cyclist/skateboarder/rollerblader/giant crocodile bike. On the flip side, even when running, I've had difficulties getting past groups of walkers who take up the whole footpath leaving no room for anyone to pass (whether on foot, bike or other). It seems to me that as long as this path remains multi use, without any clear separation of uses within that pathway, this problem will remain.

Tom, great post. Well thought out and just goes to show some cyclists can look at the bigger picture.

Will pick you up on one thing, 4000km's and you have only seen three cyclists go through red lights? There must be a massive difference between Christchurch and Auckland. Come and enjoy a nice cold pint with me in Mission bay in summer and i will show you at least 10 an hour!!

As with the majority of problems on NZ roads, they can all be traced back to the appalling standard of Kiwi drivers. The complete lack of car control and hazard awareness, coupled with unbelieveable self importance and aggression would be funny if it werent so dangerous. The whole debate about reversing out of angled parks is hilarious to a non-kiwi, who would simply LOOK over their left shoulder in to the BLIND SPOT and try to spot the camoflaged cyclist wearing BRIGHTLY COLOURED LYCRA, wait for them to pass and then reverse out. Not rocket science.

Unfortunately a lot of these bad habits of kiwi drivers are the same when cycling, as the majority of cyclists (I would imagine) are also car owners.

If more tolerance, awareness and simple common courtesy was taught as part of the kiwi driving test it would reduce the arrogance that is prevalent amongst car drivers AND cyclists.

This isn't a problem in the cycling mad countries of Europe (France and Italy particularly) where traffic is heavier and speeds are much higher, because people actually learn some degree of vehicle control and arent tainted at birth with some sort of God-Complex when it comes to road use.

More power to your pedals!

Reading the comments, the problem seems to be no delineation between the 3 groups - guaranteed to cause collisions. One thing they tried successfully in Portland was a slight raised hump about an inch high dividing footpath from cyclepath (rather than a painted mark on the ground), it seems such a ludicrously simple idea but the bit of concrete made a huge difference to cycle/ped/traffic psychology - collisions dropped away to nothing, bike use increased. Plus the path around oriental bay is wide enough to accommodate it.

In typical fashion, the cyclist haters are taking the Residents Association's proposal for discussion and somehow turning it into a backdrop to continue their rants against cyclists.

Reading that statement from Colin Blair (via Mary Wareham, #17), it seems apparent that the association is simply seeking a solution to the issue it's facing - that is, that fast cyclists and pedestrians are conflicting with the current situation. The association itself is not ranting on about how evil cyclists are (like various posters here), but rather looking to find an amicable solution.

I would support the reduction in speed limit to encourage cyclists onto the road. I understand from the comments of other posters that the footpath is shared, so the cyclists can legally occupy it. Indeed, I think it's good that less confident cyclists have somewhere to go if they perceive the road as too dangerous. Lowering the speed limit to 40kph would dramatically reduce the speed differential between cars and bikes - I don't know what the speed limit is currently (presumably 50kph?), but for a cyclist riding at 30kph, then the speed differential would be halved. This would help to alleviate some of the issues cyclists and motorists experience.

Another option is to develop better infrastructure in the region. Whether this involves removing the angle parks to improve the motorists' visibility when parking or introducing a better bike lane (is there one there at present?), improving the road design could certainly encourage cyclists onto the road.

Cyclists have a responsibility on shared paths to look out for pedestrians, much like pedestrians have to look out for cyclists. Cyclists shouldn't be riding at a speed that puts either the rider or pedestrians in danger, and should always be cautious around other walkway users. Pedestrians should show the same courtesy around other users, and ensure that everybody can use the path, by walking in a predictable fashion and ensuring there is room for cyclists to get past.

Seeing as this is already long, I'll refute some of the anti-cyclist comments on here:

"Cyclists don't pay to be on our roads!"

The funding for local roads is split between the National Land Transport Fund (NLTF, where things like RUCs go), Crown funds and fund from the local government. As is often pointed out, most cyclists contribute to the NLTF through other vehicles. Cyclists contribute to the other two sources as well. Considering the fact that we're generally marginalised to a small strip on the left hand side of the road, I would consider cyclists to be very generous.

Cycling has more indirect financial benefits to all regardless. There was an Australian study done a few years ago (if somebody could locate it, that would be hugely appreciated) that found that cyclists save the taxpayer an average of approximately 1 Australian dollar for every kilometre cycled (as opposed to driving) because of things like reduced road wear and less taxpayer funded medical care.

Via the "Active Transport for America" report, page 5, increasing the percentage of short trips (less than three miles) made by cycling and walking would save a country like America a lot of money. The current mode share is 9.6% - increasing this to 13% would save the US an extra $6.3 billion US dollars, while going from 9.6% to 25% would save an extra $61.8 billion US dollars. While the New Zealand amounts would be smaller, they would still be significant savings.

"Cyclists never obey the road rules!"

I completely agree that cyclists need to obey the road rules, but:

You must have substantially different cyclists to Christchurch, because in my experience, this is completely untrue. Some of what you perceive as being illegal is actually legal, and indeed done for our safety. If there's an intersection coming up and I can see you indicating left and coming up behind me, then I will move out if I consider it unsafe to pass. My safety is more important than saving you a couple of seconds, and realistically, cyclists can judge things like this a lot better than motorists. I've ridden a fair bit, and I know how common it is for cars do to things like misjudge your speed, pass you, then turn left in front of you. It seems like motorists just assume we're all riding at 10kph, and behave accordingly. As pointed out earlier, a lot of cyclists are more than capable of riding at a 50kph speed limit for short periods of time. It's not uncommon for cyclists to be riding at 40kph for long periods of time either, but some drivers don't factor this in. The point I'm trying to make here is that just because a cyclist moves out to occupy a lane, that doesn't make the cyclist a law breaker. If they moved out to occupy the only lane in one direction and held up traffic for a prolonged period without any justifiable reason, that is illegal (impeding the flow of traffic).

Bike lanes are another example - it seems that if a cyclist rides outside a bike lane, they're blamed for somehow being in the wrong. As readers have pointed out in previous articles, bikes lanes are to keep cars out, not bikes in. I agree that if a bike lane is suitable is should be used (and at least 99% of cyclists that I've ever seen will use a suitable bike lane), but what cyclists and motorists consider suitable can differ. There's often a lot of glass in bike lanes that motorists cannot see, which forces cyclists out onto the road. Also, when passing parked cars - cyclists will ride on the extreme right of the bike lane / left of the road to avoid being hit by people opening car doors. Riding through town, I'll have a car door opened on me roughly once every 5-10km, so it makes sense to ride outside the door zone.

The red light issue - this is the one that all the motorists seem to complain about. In ~4000km of riding in Christchurch this year, I've seen a grand total of 3 cyclists either blatantly run a red light or accelerate to get through an orange. In contrast, I've seen hundreds of cars do the same thing. I accept that I only travel a small part of Christchurch and that other places may be different, but to only see 3 cyclists out of the many hundreds I've watched break this road rule would suggest that in my part of Christchurch at least, it's drivers, not cyclists that need brushing up on traffic light rules. I'm not defending the 3 that broke the law - if we want to be treated as valid road users, we have to obey the road rules. I am saying that motorists seem to notice the few cyclists who stand out by their bad behaviour, while ignoring the thousands that obey the law. I'm not saying that all cyclists are perfect and all motorists are evil, but it does seem that motorists are willing to overlook good cyclists to harp on about these huge masses of evil cyclists, which apparently exist in other places.

The two abreast issue is an interesting one, and one that seems to be misconstrued to an extent from both parties. Riding two abreast is legal in most situations, but notably not when either a) passing parked vehicles or b) impeding the flow of traffic. By and large, these pack cyclists that some people seem to despise do most of there riding in areas with few cars. Those in Christchurch may know that we tend to ride in the Port Hills, and try to avoid routes where there is a high traffic flow. If we do run into a situation where we're holding up traffic, we will endeavour to slot into single file or at the very least move hard left. Moving into single file isn't something that you can do in an instant, but most complaints seem to come from people who refuse to wait till it's safe to pass anyway and just come straight past us. I accept that some bunches will push their luck with regards to impeding the flow of traffic - these bunches are a minority, and holding up traffic isn't something that I (or most other cyclists) condone.

I'll just end this here by mentioning the horn issue. The horn is supposed to be an emergency measure for situations that warrant it - trying to tell cyclists to move over certainly doesn't warrant it. Too often I hear "I honked at those evil cyclists, then they gave me the finger. What bad people!" sort of comments, and to be honest, the first thought I have is that "you shouldn't have used your horn!". Nowadays, it seems the horn honk is equivalent to "I'm in a bad mood, and I feel like taking it out on those most vulnerable". Motorists: don't use your horn for trivial matters. You'll just aggravate the situation, and make it worse.

I think the main thing to come out of this section is that the number of law breakers amongst cyclists is very small, but people like BC-Wgtn only manage to notice the few law breaking ones, and ignore the huge number of other cyclists that don't run red lights, or impede the flow of traffic.

I fail to see how Patrick Morgan is whinging - he is just stating what he feels would help to alleviate the situation. Would those complaining about him feel the same way if he was advocating removing a bike lane to help cars travel faster? I didn't think so.

I know this went well off topic, but I felt that I should address the fallacies of some of the anti-cyclist posters here. At the end of the day, the car-bike issue isn't as huge as people seem to think. I get passed by literally thousands of cars a week, and I'll get abuse (or a horn honk) or a car seriously breaching the road rules (things like failing to give way and making me sweve to avoid them) once every couple of weeks. The abuse tends to come from people who have no issue with me being on the road, but rather idiots who are either young or drunk and feel like having a bit of "fun". As you can imagine, Thursday and Friday nights near uni tend to be worse than usual for this sort of behaviour.

Pedestrians, cyclists and motorists can all coexist peacefully. The Oriental Bay Residents' Association and Cycling Advocates Network both want the same thing, that is, an amicable solution to the issue of the conflict between cyclists and pedestrians on a shared pathway, and I wish them the best in finding that solution.

DD #22, perfectly timed post mate, you proved my point about the unbelieveable arrogance of cyclists in the post straight after mine! Excellent work.

I think most cyclists are delusional if they think the can cycle in Wellington. No matter how much the wish it will never be like europe or christchurch. They must be in denial in realising that they wasted so much money on a bike.

FC_Shaza - Sounds like you need some exercise there love, get on a bike! :)

Once again cyclists are are problem. Its about time we teach these bafoons their place, they think it is their god given right to act in the manner they do, over and above the law. First problem, why are cyclists not on the road, the only bikes that should be on the footpath are toddlers with training wheels. Second, cyclists in wellington are still not biking in single file when there is a group of them, obviously their conversations are much more important than there safety when i am tryinig to get past, and they get pissed off when you beep your horn at them. Simple solution, ban cyclists, they are a hazard far worse than boy racers

Thanks for the link 1006. What a no-brainer reverse angle parking seems to be; it would make things way safer and easier.

Being a resident living around that way personally I haven't encountered too many problems with cyclists going past when walking; normally there's a good amount of room around. That said I'm often surprised that there hasn't been something of a two lane system; one for walkers and the other for cyclists and skaters. The walkway around the waterfront in Vancouver benefited greatly from that and it made everyone much more aware of what was going on and everybody seemed to courteously keep to their side. Would be pretty easy to do.

Talking about cyclists in this instance, what annoys me is not this shared space but the constant use of non-shared space footpaths by cyclists who really do expect people to move out of their way. I think that would be a very useful thing to educate some cyclists about.

SO the answer to people being inconsiderate and inept from all sides of the argument is to mess with the speed limit...

How about some judder bars and lights to slow the traffic down and create more congestion in our city?

Ideas to put forward? Cyclists, the roads are too narrow in Wellington, and where they are wide you take up the whole lane. Motorists, take your horse blinkers off and actually watch what you are doing backing out of a park. Pedestrians, walk in a straight line, there aren't imaginary shuttles to weave around. How about make that lane on the foot path a little thin one for pedestrians, and a wider one for cyclists - how juvenille? I have been a cyclist, motorist, and pedestrian around Oriental Parade. Because of a lot of ignorant, and arrogant people - yes they exist in Wellington, and in disproportionate numbers, I now avoid Oriental Parade like the plague. If you don't like something you don't have to go there.