Wellington Parking - They are about to clamp down on bike parking

[icemotoboy]

I had been using the James Smith Carpark (in Wellington, beside the Duxton) building to park my Aprilia RS250 occasionally for a number of years when I take my bike in the city, along with two friends who also parked their bikes there. I used to pay for a carpark there - till the parking people actually requested I not pay and simply ride around the barriers and use their designated motorcycle parking. I have no idea why they do this, but all the parking guy could tell me is that there was no money in motorcycle parking - and they prefer to have bikes in one place so they don't cause obstructions.

I don't generally use the bike for comuting, as I tend to either walk or run into work. I just use the motorcycle when I am running late or need to run errands.

Both my other friends had their bikes stolen. I've had three attempted thefts on my motorcycle, two of which were during the day. One did over $6000 worth of damage to my motorcycle, taking 13 months to fix. They tried to pick the motorcycle up and poped of the fairings. And it appears they tried to hotwire the motorcycle (neglecting the fact it is a kick start, instead frying the electronics). They also tried to drill the lock, before giving up. My motorcycle had a chain lock, and an alarm. They may have helped prevent the bike being stolen (the bastards have not got it yet!), it didn't stop them trashing it.

I then began parking my bike in the carpark basement at my work (on Willis Street). Cyclists would then wedge their cycles in beside my nice expensive fairings, making lovely little patterns all over them.

In principle, I agree with the need to do "something". I have often parked on footpaths when not in the CBD. I particularly didn't think about the implications for blind people walking along and falling over a parked bike. That IS a real concern. I can see how bikes on footpaths are really a problem, particularly in the CBD. And, the wind tends to blow bikes over that are parked on the street or footpaths anyway. Basically, I'd like to use off-street parking but have yet to find one that suits my needs and stops the freaking bike ninja's trying to steal my little piece of italy.

Above you mentioned little difference, security wise, between motorcycles and cars. Motorcycles, particularly my mint-condition Aprilia RS250 2003, are much easier to pick up and fit in the back of a van than, say, a Toyota Camry. Chain locks are pretty easily foiled, and despite having video footage of all the attempted thefts - there wasn't a single lead (nor police/insurance interest) in pursing the culprits. The sole reason my bike was not stolen was because every time they tried to pick the bike up and lift it into the van, the bits they were holding onto kept breaking. Eventually, it was so screwed they just ditched it. The police officer who I spoke to suggested it was a bad idea to park it in the carpark building, as lots of bikes get stolen from there. The insurance company threatened to raise my premium if I continued parking in off-street parking in the CBD. All bar one of these attempts occured in broad daylight - something that would be noticed if the bike was parked beside pedestrian traffic.

There is a lack of an overall strategy for dealing with the "final solution to the motorcycle question". Regardless of what outcome the council wants, unless you get the carpark companies, the police, your staff, the insurance companies, and the community on a common track and plan - then the strategy won't work. Each state and local government party involved with motorcycles are dealing with them on a problem-by-problem basis:
- the council : use off-street parking
- the police : don't use off-street parking
- the LTNZ : don't use a motorcycle
- insurance companies : own but don't use a motorcycle

My points:

- Off-street parking companies don't WANT motorcyclists revenue - because they are a headache. I am concerned your plan appears to hinge on this point.
- Motorcycles get stolen from existing off-street parking buildings. Partly because motorcycle designated parking is in the darkest, crappiest, place in the parking building. Steel bars for chains do not deter the thieves.
- Motorcycles are more prone to theft because they are more easily stolen. Security considerations are different, although not necessarily bigger or smaller - just different.
- Lack of co-ordination and by-in from the Police, the parking companies, insurance companies, and the council to solve the problem(s) together. There is no "win-win-win-win" solution that benefits you all (let alone the motorcylists themselves).

I don't think you will be able to solve those problems in the short term, and a solution is needed in the short term. Coupon parking seems like a better idea to me, for the short term, until parking companies decide there is money in motorcycle parking.

...alternatively, the CEO of the Dunedin City Council (where my old man works) LOVES his motorcycles... so you could all move there (as I am doing soon!).

[davereid]

This doesn't seem to get past the problem of how two motorcyclists can use the same park without both paying.

Good points in your post..

The solution is just old fashioned VENNER style parking meters. Allow 1.5 metres per bike, and give em all a meter.

Or, if you want to maximise carparks, give car parks VENNER style meters. If a bike is in first, he pays the meter.

If another bike shows up, so what ? You have already rented, and been paid for the space so council loses nothing.

If there are 5 bikes in the space, and an expired meter TICKET THEM ALL ! As any of them could have paid the fee.

[Leseid]

Dude- I was a truck driver for 5 years- that statement is utter bullshit

Motorcycles are JUST as visible- assholes in cages just dont LOOK for them, or arrogantly ignore the fact they HAVE seen them and fail to give way

I have had no less than four cars this year alone deliberatly pull out on me and flip me the bird (right they couldnt SEE me im not AS VISIBLE)

I have a theory on that actually, I am under the impression the average motorist looks for gaps between objects of a certain size i.e. other cars and trucks. Any object smaller requires a different part of their brain to override the lazy mental habit.

[Ixion]

I agree with your theory.

Cagers look along the roof lines of oncoming vehicles. If they see a gap with no car (or truck) in it, their mind (or what passes for a mind, we are talking cagers here) says " Ah, gee a gap. No car dere. Oi can go into that gap. Bout time I been waiting ages, at least 10 seconds. " And that's the end of it, they stop looking , just wait for that gap to get up to them. And pull out as it approaches. "Ah, sorry mate didn't see ya, but it's all ya own fault , cos ya didn't have ya headloight on, or if ya did I didn't see it, and it's your job to make sure I see ya, an I didn't so it's ya fault".

[Badjelly]

Your statistics placing motorcycles as 6 times more likely per km than walking or cycling do not stack up...

My claim is based on extensive research conducted by the New Zealand Transport Agency:
http://www.transport.govt.nz/researc...rashfacts.aspx...

The Motorcycle Crash Facts document compares accident rates of motorcycle and cars but not (as far as I can see) bicycles.

There is also a Cycle Crash Facts document that has a more complete comparison. It has a chart entitled "People killed or injured in motor vehicle crashes per million hours spent travelling, Jul 2003 - Jun 2007(all ages)". It has motorcyclists at 120, cyclists at 35 and car drivers at 8.

As I said in an earlier post, I think safety is a bit off-topic for this thread, except in so far as it affects local bodies' enthusiasm for encouraging motorcycling. I think we all realise motorcycling is more dangerous than driving a car. (Hands up who doesn't realise this! You at the back? Sorry, you don't count, you're obviously living on another planet.) We could (and will) discuss the reasons why and we can even try to do something about it, but we're not going to erase the difference.

What I want to challenge is this idea that cycling is clean, green, sustainable and generally a good thing, whereas motorcycling is dirty, smelly, crazily unsafe and generally a bad thing. In switching my commuting trip from a car to a small bike I have cut my fuel use by 67% (fuel consumption has gone from 10 to 3.3 l/100 km), I take up a little less space on the road (I ride like a Nana), and a lot less space at the end of the trip. But when I fill out a form on sustainable transport (my employer's into that stuff) I'm invisible. Walking, cycling and public transport are sustainable, apparently, and motorcycling is not.

Now I don't ride the bike primarily so I can boast about sustainability, I do it because I enjoy it (and it does save fuel). Cycling's an option I've considered too, but I'm not at all convinced it would make me safer, not if I ride the same route, through the winter months and in all weather as I do with the motorbike.

[sinned]

The notices were placed on bikes this afternoon. They were wrapped around the throttle so hard to miss.
Here is a pic of the action.

[Bretman]

Yes, I too had one of the "considerate parking" notices affixed to my handlebars this afternoon.

I must say I was a bit aggrieved considering my bike was parked at the front of a private carpark leased commercially by our company and shared with permission with one of our company cars. The bike is parked considerately and entirely within our leased park, nowhere near a footpath.

Mr Visser: I suggest that you have a word with your enforcement staff to ensure they understand which parking areas are council owned and therefore within jurisdiction which are private, commercial parks; and perhaps also that they are a little less indiscriminate in their "leaflet dropping".

As far as I can make out, I'm actually already doing what your campaign is aiming to encourage people to do - park in commercial parks freeing up council motorcycle spaces... don't you think?

Thanks for the rubber band, though.

[davebullet]

I was parked on private land (Jon Visser confirmed this in an earlier post) and got the same warning notice today. I think The Council needs to educate staff about which areas are private parking vs. obvious footpath parking.

I'll keep parking there and see what happens....

[BMWST?]

Yes, I too had one of the "considerate parking" notices affixed to my handlebars this afternoon.

I must say I was a bit aggrieved considering my bike was parked at the front of a private carpark leased commercially by our company and shared with permission with one of our company cars. The bike is parked considerately and entirely within our leased park, nowhere near a footpath.

Mr Visser: I suggest that you have a word with your enforcement staff to ensure they understand which parking areas are council owned and therefore within jurisdiction which are private, commercial parks; and perhaps also that they are a little less indiscriminate in their "leaflet dropping".

As far as I can make out, I'm actually already doing what your campaign is aiming to encourage people to do - park in commercial parks freeing up council motorcycle spaces... don't you think?

Thanks for the rubber band, though.

dont you evr park your bike away from your leased spot?.they are trying to inform ALL motorcyclists

[cheshirecat]

Just a point of interest. A study in the UK found that train travel is less effienct energy wise then one person driving a a car in. I'm trying to track the study down again.

[sinned]

Just a point of interest. A study in the UK found that train travel is less effienct energy wise then one person driving a a car in. I'm trying to track the study down again.

That was quoted on Top Gear and I wasn't sure if it was made as a statement of fact or a pisstake. I would be interested in reading the study.

[Ixion]

It's probably true. Same goes for buses.

In peak hour transport (which is when public transport is claimed to be good), the train or bus , carrying a full load of passengers into the city (or wherever), is very efficient.

BUT-- once it gets to the end of the run, it has to go back again!. And this time there's bugger all passengers (nature of rush hours, everybody's going the same way). So it has to lug all that huge weight (bus, or train and carriages), back to the beginning with scarcely a passenger to put against that energy expenditure.

Repeat in reverse at the end of the day.

This is the bit that the "private transport is evil" greenies always carefully omit. They always quote the figures for public transport based on a full passenger load. And ignore the fact that you can't just stockpile trains at the end of the line.

[cheshirecat]

That was quoted on Top Gear and I wasn't sure if it was made as a statement of fact or a pisstake. I would be interested in reading the study.

Got it it's here
car comes out at 22l per 600k with two people and a train 22l per seat

[davereid]

Interesting report.

Of course, the car is rated per passenger. The train is rated per seat.

Neiher the car or the train is ever full. But if the car were, it would be well over twice the trains efficiency.

We really need to challenge this drivel that "public transport is sustainable and green.

Cos its not. No matter how many times they say it is.

[Bretman]

Yes, of course I do... but as a rule I park in motorcycle spaces rather than on the footpath.

I take issue because the implication of the leaflet is that it has been left because your bike is parked illegally and that it is a warning of an impending ticket.

If it was just an informative leaflet, then you're right, but it wasn't worded that way.