Posts by Matthew Poole
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Lowering the Stakes, in reply to BenWilson,
Bicycle registration is also probably a good idea in a place where bike theft is a massive problem
It's a problem quite out of control in Stockholm, from what I've read, and they don't have bicycle registration. I suspect that it rapidly becomes unwieldy and unmanageable when applied to even a moderately-sized population. Davis' population is lower than that of Palmy, and not too much above Nelson's.
-
Hard News: Lowering the Stakes, in reply to Bart Janssen,
Yet Davis is full of cyclists because the city is designed to allow cyclists safe and convenient routes.
That's a key thing. In most of NZ, especially in Auckland, cycling is enough of a hassle (and game of Russian roulette) that requiring and enforcing a WoF requirement for bicycles would be more of a headache than many were prepared to sustain. If cycling was mostly a pain-free (metaphorical and literal) pursuit it would be less challenging.
-
Speaker: TPP: Nearing Endgame, in reply to Kumara Republic,
this time it’s about weakening environmental regulations.
That’s not really accurate. It’s about not tightening environmental regulations.
ETA: What's particularly curious is that everyone else, even NZ, is resisting the tighter language. What's up on WikiLeaks doesn't really go into enough detail to know why that is.
-
Hard News: Lowering the Stakes, in reply to Sol K,
The only place in NZ I can find that's carrying any MIPS helmets is Burke's Cycles, and they only have a single POC model. Looks like people get them in the from the US.
-
Hard News: Lowering the Stakes, in reply to Bart Janssen,
But bikes could be separated temporally fairly easily by giving bikes a time of their own to cross the intersection. Much the same way we allow pedestrians to cross intersections at a different time from cars.
A bike button at the intersection that gave bikes a 10 second “lead” on the green light would do it.
However, many of the crashes occur at intersections which are not controlled by lights, often when the cyclist has a legal right-of-way.
As one example, there was a serious crash (mapped) at the Kalmia St/Main Highway intersection which I encountered on my way to work one morning in 2011. The sun comes right across the top of the bridge in the morning, and an unfortunate lady was cycling down the bridge with the sun right behind her when a car turned right into Kalmia, directly across her path.
Many of the serious crashes on Tamaki Drive occur in places where cars are trying to join Tamaki Drive and collide with cyclists who are travelling straight through. We can't put traffic lights at every intersection just to give cyclists priority.
-
Submitted these two today:
ACC
PO Box 242
Wellington 6140Attn: Claims information, OIA request
To whom it may concern:
I am writing to request information held by ACC on collisions involving pedestrians and/or bicycles for the most recent five-year period for which records are available.
Specifically, please advise for each year in the requested period:
1) Total number of claims for collisions where any party was a pedestrian or bicyclist, sub-totalled by combination of parties (if available). i.e.: motor vehicle vs pedestrian, motor vehicle vs bicycle, bicycle vs pedestrian. Please exclude claims involving only the claimant
2) Total number of incidents within 1 where hospitalisation occurred, sub-totalling any collisions where there was no motor vehicle involved (if available)
3) Total number of incidents within 1 where a fatality occurred, sub-totalling any collisions where there was no motor vehicle involved (if available)and
Police National Headquarters
PO Box 3017
Wellington 6140Attn: Traffic policing, OIA request
To whom it may concern:
I am writing to request information held by the Police on collisions involving pedestrians and/or bicycles for the most recent five-year period for which records are available.
Specifically, please advise for each year in the requested period:
1) Total number of incidents reported to the police for collisions where any party was a pedestrian or bicyclist, sub-totalled by combination of parties. i.e.: motor vehicle vs pedestrian, motor vehicle vs bicycle, bicycle vs pedestrian
2) Total number of incidents within 1 where a serious crash investigation was conducted, sub-totalling any collisions where there was no motor vehicle involved
3) Total number of incidents within 1 where a fatality occurred, sub-totalling any collisions where there was no motor vehicle involved
4) A breakdown of 1 by attribution of fault based on type of at-fault party. i.e.: Fault entirely attributed to pedestrian, entirely attributed to bicyclist, entirely attributed to motorist, or shared
5) A breakdown of 2 by attribution of fault based on type of at-fault party
6) A breakdown of enforcement actions and outcomes for 1, 2 and 3, grouped according to type of party. e.g.: Motorists warned/diverted, motorists prosecuted and convicted, motorists unsuccessfully prosecutedThese were prompted by an unwavering assertion on FB by someone who I'd consider fairly moderate that cyclists are so much of a hazard to pedestrians that it makes sense to legally lump us with motor vehicles, and also a clear general vibe that cyclists are to blame for our own strife on the roads so deserve no sympathy for engaging in illegal behaviour in order to try and rebalance the odds.
-
Hard News: Lowering the Stakes, in reply to Richard Stewart,
I’m allowed to drive in the right hand lane of the motorway at 80k.
Actually, technically, no you're not. It's not enforced, but it's against the law to use the right-hand lane if you are not travelling at or above the speed of the traffic in the lanes to your left.
You would also be falling foul of the requirement to move left to avoid posing an impediment to faster-moving traffic behind you if your 80km/h was not faster than other traffic. -
Hard News: Lowering the Stakes, in reply to winston moreton,
If a bike hits a pedestrian then it was not safe.
Too blunt. My sole cyclist/pedestrian incident occurred when a pedestrian stepped out in front of me a car length ahead, from between parked cars. Snapped my headset, gave me whiplash (my head got forced backwards), and was utterly, unarguably not my fault. I was on the road, lit (it was dusk), and could not possibly have avoided him. If I'd been on the footpath and he'd been coming onto the footpath from between parked cars the situation would have been no different, the outcome no different, but you would now be proposing that the impossibility of avoiding a collision occasioned by no bad behaviour of my own be indisputably my fault.
-
Legal Beagle: John Banks: what next?, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
A 10-day trial in May. Was not expecting that length.
That almost seems excessive. How long did the committal hearing take?
-
Legal Beagle: John Banks: what next?, in reply to mark taslov,
There was another document I was reading on Friday, which I now cannot locate, which also had the other question I paraphrased (as well as this one) about having used contacts to deal with bureaucratic roadblocks.
So no, I'm not fudging. I accurately recalled the question for which I have provided a quote, and of the two that is the more damning.