Submissions Blast Govt Document’s Roading Blindspot

Posted by Jon C in cycling, pedestriansNov 22nd, 2009 | 3 responses

More than 1500 submissions were received on the Government’s Safer Journeys discussion document  - 1300 from individuals from the public – and it’s waitingpleasing to note a general complaint was that the policy was too focused on a “roading business as usual approach.”

A common complaint was the blinkers on roading meant the document failed to consider cycling, walking and passenger transport as being “integral parts of the system.” Walking/cycling came across as areas that should be of high priority, instead of medium as listed in the document.

So, either the government officials were out of step with the mood of the nation or, those who think differently are getting noiser- which is a good thing.

In the submissions, improving the walking and cycling infrastructure was mentioned frequently.  One reason mentioned was that everyone is a pedestrian at some point of a journey. Another is the high number of cyclists and pedestrians involved in fatal crashes, because they are vulnerable road users.

Submitters referred to other countries and cities as positive examples for good walking and cycling conditions (eg the Netherlands and Denmark/ Copenhagen).  A high proportion of submitters supported all initiatives in this priority area.

Among suggested initiatives :

  • Infrastructure: More and better cycle and/or walking infrastructure was mentioned more often than any of the proposed initiatives from the discussion document
  • Many submitters believed that pedestrians and cyclists should be separated from cars.
  • Specific suggestions relating to infrastructure included: clip-ons on bridges, better surface for cycling (no gravel, no broken glass on the cycle path) or “rumble strips‘ on the road edge lines to protect cyclists travelling on the shoulder from cars, especially when going around corners
  • Enforcement was the second highest ranking idea, but it was mentioned much less frequently than infrastructure. Submitters commented on enforcement of  cyclists that do not follow the rules, but also on car drivers
  • More or better driver training and more emphasis on driver awareness ranked third
  • Improving the visibility of cyclists and pedestrians ranked fourth but some responses expressed the view that cyclists are a hazard, and that there should be more cycling road rules .
  • Many stakeholders (including the Cycling Advocates Network) raised the importance of improving techniques to integrate safety into land use planning. It was submitted that local government should play an important role with this integration
  • The idea of separating transport modes on the roads as much as possible was raised
  • The need to increase the provision of footpaths and cycle lanes was also raised.

Transport minister Steven Joyce’s reaction is that the feedback received from road users will be used to develop the national road safety strategy for the next ten years. “It will be important though, that legislative or rule changes resulting from this exercise are backed up by evidence. My focus is on implementing initiatives that will actually change behaviour and, ultimately, reduce the road toll.”



3 Responses to “Submissions Blast Govt Document’s Roading Blindspot”

  1. Cambennett says:
    November 23, 2009 at 8:14 am

    So he just chose to ignore the fact that high percentage of people said there needed to be a wider focus huh? Not surprising dosn’t matter what’s put in front of Joyce his mind is made up things wont change as long as he’s around.

  2. Jeremy Harris says:
    November 23, 2009 at 3:52 pm

    The evidence is you are 18 times more likely to be injured on a bicycle than in a car and 75% of these injuries will be caused by motorists… Doesn’t take a genius to see that it isn’t just motorists fault but mainly local and central government’s fault for not providing the infastructure… When I met Tommy Parker from the NZTA he said the calls for greater cycling funding are falling on deaf ears because councils almost never spend their bicycling budget on bicycling…

  3. Kevyn Miller says:
    November 28, 2009 at 3:59 pm

    Unfortunately NZTA’s stats only include cyclists if the cyclist is killed or injured as result of a collision with a motorvehicle. Although Ministry of Health stats show that 80% of cyclist’s hospital admission were the result of collisions that did not involve a motorvehicle they do not identify what, if any, proportion of the 80% were on-road or on-cycleway crashes or what proportion were MTBs or BMXs.

    With road deaths 50% above the target set in the current road safety strategy (6.1 deaths per billion vkt) and with 10% increase in hospital admissions between 2004 and 2008 despite less than 1% traffic growth it is abundantly clear that recent and current governments have been distracted by frivolous minority issues such as boy racers and Auckland congestion. The diversion of resources that were supposed to have been committed to implementing the current road safety strategy has already killed more than 300 New Zealander’s, left 100 permanently on ACC and denied hospital beds to thousands on elective surgery waiting lists.

    Clearly politicians have demonstrated that they can’t even take a narrow view successfully. If they do take a broader, more inclusive approach to road safety it will just give them some knew words to use when they talk the talk. The next strategy will just be filed away to gather dust just like the current one has been.

    If it hadn’t been for the Japanese government tightening car safety standards in 1994 and the Chinese government muscleing in on global oil supplies would probably be another 50% worse than it has ended up being.

    We now have just six weeks to cut the road toll by one-third, and there’s only one proven way to do that – push fuel prices back above the $2 psychological barrier. The petrol price spikes in 2001, 2005 and 2008 all resulted in the road toll falling by 20% – 30% for at least five months. Of course, to lock in the reductions for longer than five months the 50c road safety fuel levee would have to be spent on initiatives that are actual proven to work – booze bus blitzes, seat belt blitzes, rumbles strips, CSZs, safety barriers, pavement shape correcting, intersection improvements, and so forth. The latter all being far more labour intensive than motorway building.

Leave a Reply