Auckland Harbour Bridge.

[Swoop]

The "getacross" website is soliciting for opinions on the bridge being modified to accept cyclists and pedestrian traffic.
Presumably scooters and bikes would not be permitted (going from previous transit decisions...).

A cycleway is needed, but at the expense of one lane of traffic flow?

My submission to "name the cycleway" came back with "Thanks for your name suggestion. It sure is a great idea!". Im really happy that they like The Lycra Lane

[vifferman]

I think it's a stupid idea having pedestrian and cycle access over the bridge. Under it might be OK.
On the North Shore, the council has sunk lots of money into cycle lanes, that way less than 1% of the population use. One Saturday recently, I drove around all over the Shore, and saw no (zero!) cyclists at all. Commuting to work, I usually see only one or two, and one day last week, the only one I saw on the way to work was riding next to the cycle lane, thus obstructing traffic. The only reason for this seems to have been that he was a Serious Bicycler, and his own private road hadn't been swept, so it had quite a bit of gravel'n'crap in it.

[Morcs]

This is happening everywhere. Sacrificing an entire lane of traffic just so that a bus or whatever can go through every 10 minutes.

What a load of shit. Cyclists dont pay rego, so why do they get to take our road?

[jrandom]

... his own private road hadn't been swept, so it had quite a bit of gravel'n'crap in it.

All good points.

From the perspective of a cyclist, I must say, I think that 'cycle lanes' are largely a waste of time. When traffic is heavy enough that it's moving slower than I can pedal (30kph on the flat, 15kph up hills, etc) I just filter between cars.

Otherwise, I just stay left-ish and let them around. No hassle for anyone concerned.

The most laughable arrangement is when councils paint white lines down the middle of bumpy, shitty pedestrian sidewalks full of driveway exits and expect cyclists to use them instead of the roads.

[jrandom]

Cyclists dont pay rego, so why do they get to take our road?

I'm a cyclist (well, occasionally) and I pay rego for three vehicles, one of which (my car) is hardly ever used, so STFU.

Anyway, bicycles (when ridden correctly) take very little to no space on the road, don't wear the road surface away like large vehicles (and even motorcycles) do, and emit absolutely no pollutants.

Not to mention the positive effects on society from its members getting out and doing some exercise.

All very good reasons to exempt bicycles from the vehicle registration tax.

[Big Dave]

Maybe - but then if they get one maybe we can get one eventually.

Been to several Asian cities where they have bike and scooter lanes. Complete carnage - but they have them.

[Morcs]

I'm a cyclist (well, occasionally) and I pay rego for three vehicles, one of which (my car) is hardly ever used, so STFU.

Anyway, bicycles (when ridden correctly) take very little to no space on the road, don't wear the road surface away like large vehicles (and even motorcycles) do, and emit absolutely no pollutants.

Not to mention the positive effects on society from its members getting out and doing some exercise.

All very good reasons to exempt bicycles from the vehicle registration tax.

Those arent points im getting at. it annoys me that they go to lengths to do these things for cyclists. When did they ever do something like that for motorcyclists? they wont even rip down a couple of wire barriers FFS.

But where is the governments motivation for cycle lanes? trying to encourage more people onto bikes? Less revenue for them through regos, fuel etc...

[jrandom]

Those arent points im getting at. it annoys me that they go to lengths to do these things for cyclists. When did they ever do something like that for motorcyclists? they wont even rip down a couple of wire barriers FFS.

It's uncool to hate cyclists; it's cool to hate motorcyclists. The majority opinion carries the day.

But where is the governments motivation for cycle lanes? trying to encourage more people onto bikes? Less revenue for them through regos, fuel etc...

Ever consider that just maybe democracy is functioning as intended, and it is not The Gubmint (tm) causing things to happen, here, but simply a populace with a large and vocal number of people who ride bicycles?

[Swoop]

The email that I received that contained the link, had this message:

Hi all,
You already know my thoughts on this and some of you have joined me on clandestine cycle rides across the Harbour Bridge to support the harbour bridge cycle lane concept. A major campaign called "get across" was
launched by Y&R yesterday. Transit will do major works on the bridge in
July and we could swing the votes at board level by acting now. Now is
the chance to show some support without putting your lives or your
wallets at risk. You'll need to click on the link at the bottom of this
email and say "Yes" to the "Get Across" campaign.

Umm...? Clandestine rides across the bridge? On a pushbike?
This is a way to "promote" this?

[ManDownUnder]

Per the website...

"Giving all Aucklanders – and our overseas visitors – free access to our iconic bridge will be a huge positive step. Right now, apart from a few isolated stretches, Auckland is an unfriendly, even dangerous place to walk or cycle. Compare this to other Pacific rim cities like Sydney and San Francisco, where easy access to their harbour bridges and waterside is a part of everyday life. Opening our bridge to everyone is one of the best things we can do for our city."

See - it's one of the best things we can do - they said so! Let's see... restrict traffic flows on the bridge, cost truckloads of cash but enable how many cyclists an d pedestrians to use the bridge??? ummmmm nuh

Closing off a lane for light rail makes more sense to me...

[jrandom]

Umm...? Clandestine rides across the bridge? On a pushbike?

This is a way to "promote" this?

Well, hmm, yes, riding bicycles over the bridge as it stands is a step too far. I'm all in favour of carefully-targeted civil disobedience, but not carefully-targeted suicidal civil disobedience.

[WRT]

I'm a cyclist (well, occasionally) and I pay rego for three vehicles, one of which (my car) is hardly ever used, so STFU.

Does that mean that as I pay rego on my car that I don't need to on the Aprilia? If so, then I like your logic.

[jrandom]

restrict traffic flows on the bridge...

Hang on, is there meaningful evidence that it would restrict traffic flows on the bridge, or did you just throw that statement out at random?

cost truckloads of cash...

It's not as though we can't afford it.

For what it's worth, as far as I've been able to tell over the years, the majority of Auckland's cycling population lives on the North Shore. I wouldn't be surprised if there was, in fact, significant usage of a cycle lane over the bridge, with a concomitant drop in the number of single-occupant cars commuting over it every day.

[Swoop]

Well, hmm, yes, riding bicycles over the bridge as it stands is a step too far. I'm all in favour of carefully-targeted civil disobedience, but not carefully-targeted suicidal civil disobedience.

I am having to guess here, but to me "clandestine" takes on the impression of "night time"...
Which would be really silly.

[jrandom]

Does that mean that as I pay rego on my car that I don't need to on the Aprilia? If so, then I like your logic.

Actually, I think, as do many others on this forum, that that's quite a good idea.

One part of the registration system being inequitable is no argument to extend the irrationality further.

Those railing against cyclists not paying rego would do better to rail against motorcyclists who also own cars having to pay rego more than once.

For what it's worth, I'd agree that, yes, a cyclist who owned no other vehicle should pay registration (to an appropriately pro-rata'd level based on road wear, ACC risk, emissions etc).