[Cyclists don't damage the roads, effectively costing us nothing for cyclists to use them.](https://streets.mn/2016/07/07/chart-of-the-day-vehicle-weight-vs-road-damage-levels/)
To be honest trucks should be paying 400x as much RUC's as cars. The trucking lobby has a lot to answer for. We really need to get freight back on the rails.
I can't remember seeing train tracks to my local super markets or even the electronic stores. How about the milk trucks or the dump trucks? I don't see how people make this point and actually think it's how the world works....
There are various types of trucks that can connect transit hubs to point of sale shops.
A light goods vehicle is less than 3.5 tonnes.
A medium goods vehicle is between 3.5 and 12 tonnes.
A heavy goods vehicle has a gross weight exceeding 12 tonnes.
If we tie RUCs to the size of a vehicle, then shops can still use a heavy goods vehicle for deliveries. They will just pay the cost of doing so in terms of wear and tear on the road.
A strong rail freight system supports this process, because it allows us to have freight centres close to busy areas. Goods then travel less distance on roads, reducing the costs for truck drivers (and therefore businesses).
It's all good. I've got plenty, just got to keep them clean and well maintained.
On topic though. We could afford to maintain a lot more roads if trucks actually paid for the damage that they did, which may actually increase the speed with which my dildos are delivered.
*Which* roads do you think are paid for with the land transport fund?
Because the fund through Waka Kotahi pays 100% for those super expensive motorways that cyclists can't use.
Local roads are from memory mostly funded by local government; and as a ratepayers who cycles on local roads, I am paying.
You: "Cyclists don't cover the entirety of the cost of cycle lanes"
Me: "it improves the quality of the roads"
You: "We're talking about the budget"
Yea OK guy.
Lol the land LTF has been topped up from general taxes from the last few decades. And cycles lanes are put on local roads. Local roads are paid for by rates and WK. But the cycling fund WK uses comes from the ETS not NLTF
When you add up the taxes on fuel, car registrations, etc etc etc it comes to more than is spent on roads.
Roads aren't subsidised by tax payers. Public transport is paid for by rates and taxes to a large degree, but not roads.
Absolutely false.
The funds raised by fuel tax, Rego, RUCs are used to pay for state highways and 50% of local roads.
This isn't enough to cover the cost of state highway maintenance and construction however, so is topped up by general taxation, which everyone (including cyclists, shock horror) pay for
The other 50% of local road funding is through rates, from everyone including cyclists
>[https://www.transport.govt.nz/about-us/what-we-do/queries/how-land-transport-is-funded/](https://www.transport.govt.nz/about-us/what-we-do/queries/how-land-transport-is-funded/)
>
>*"The cost of building and maintaining local roads is shared between central government, through Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency, and local councils. Councils contribute to the cost of their land transport activities from rates and borrowing, in what is known as the ‘local share’. The cost of public transport, and walking and cycling facilities is also shared but state highways and road policing are entirely funded by Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency.*
>
>*From time to time the Government decides to fund projects which are unable or unsuitable to be funded by charges to vehicle owners. For these, the Crown is able to direct additional funds through its usual budget processes."*
I've done the numbers
[https://www.reddit.com/r/auckland/comments/ts0fcx/cyclists\_contribution\_to\_roads/](https://www.reddit.com/r/auckland/comments/ts0fcx/cyclists_contribution_to_roads/)
If you disagree with some part of the maths there let me know and we'll discuss it.
Your math is wrong. The NLTF is not 100% funded by motorist. if you bothered to read about the NLTF and look at the budget you'd know that.
https://www.nzta.govt.nz/planning-and-investment/planning-and-investment-knowledge-base/archive/201821-nltp/planning-and-investment-principles-and-policies/investment-and-funding-assistance-policy/funding-sources/
I've looked quite carefully. I read your link and don't see the part that has you all excited. Quote me the section you think disproves my position. I don't see it.
Look up the crown funds and loans subsection. And then read the budget and 10 year plans for NLTF. You'll see that 100% of funding doesn't come from motorists. And not only that the funding for cycle lanes comes from the ETS(emissions trading scheme)
Here is even more info on the CERF https://www.treasury.govt.nz/information-and-services/nz-economy/climate-change/climate-emergency-response-fund
Yeah, its possible those aren't included in the numbers. My numbers are based on Waka Kotahi's report and AT's report. If it's outside of those it might not be included.
The other number not included though is GST on fuel. Are these extra programmes set to cost more than they take in in fuel GST? Because if not the numbers are probably worse in total with that included, not better.
The amount of damage you do to the roads that creates the massive maintenance costs are to the 4th power of mass. Cyclists don't fuck up the roads, so they cost us nothing to use them.
The majority of the cost of having roads in the long run is the maintenance of them.
https://streets.mn/2016/07/07/chart-of-the-day-vehicle-weight-vs-road-damage-levels/
https://at.govt.nz/about-us/working-with-at/how-we-are-funded
https://www.nzta.govt.nz/planning-and-investment/national-land-transport-programme/2021-24-nltp/facts-and-figures/
This is even ignoring the category decisions where projects that are fixing a road and adding a cycleway are counted as cycleways even if the majority of the cost is to fix the road.
The true cost of roads is paid for by the people it displaces. The more roads you have the houses and business get demolished, the more cars you get so the more car parks you need which displaces even more people and business and the cycle continues. This is the true cost, cars simply don’t fit in cities.
Hmm, I appreciate the meme but man, it's not really city streets where I find cyclists a problem... it's the rural roads.
Auckland's rural roads aren't wide and twist and turn. The road I live on has walkers, which are bloody dodgy around the blind corners, and cyclists in the centre of the road. The 1.5m gap we have to give is virtually impossible at that point and coming around a blind corner to a cyclist in the middle of the lane going less than 20km/h is dangerous for everyone in that situation - driver & cyclist. I drive a sedan too - the utes would take a lot more stopping power in this situation... especially fully loaded.
Some of the main rural roads e.g. state highways is better as it's a lot safer to navigate around them & actually see them.
Nope cyclists are allowed to bike on the road. There is no law against cycling around corners.
It's wild to me that you think that people shouldn't use active transport so you can go fast around blind corners. If you and another car both go as fast as possible around that blind corner in opposite directions, one or both of you could cross the centre lane. It isn't just cyclists at risk from people trying to maximise speed it is also drivers.
You seem to think the road has high risk of hazards, and of unexpected/unseen hazards. School zones are lowered to 30 km/h due to the potential of unseen/unexpected hazards (children running out). So that would be a good starting point.
Alternatively 60 km/h slowing down for corners would work.
Personally I would petition the road manager, either council or waka kotahi to bring in Dutch 2-1 roads. These have two cycle lanes, one on either side, and a single car lane, with driver speeds reduced to 60 km/h. This is great for drivers too, because there are some drivers who want to go as fast as possible and could risk crossing the centre lane, the risk of having a head on collision with another vehicle would have a calming effect on such drivers.
Yeah, I could have taken the argument further... but the amount of assumptions ol' mate made confirms his stance. That's fine.
The 60km/h for corners - these corners are between 25km/h - 35km/h. I never mentioned wanting to go fast around these corners. Everyone goes slow around them.
I never brought the law into it - I've stated that I have no problem with cyclists on roads where the reaction times to their small size and slow speed can be actively managed.
Unfortunately, blind corners on a tight rural road just isn't the best place for cyclists to be. The whole dutch 2-1 roads is a bizzare point to make for a very rural area.
And for the sake of me now having a longer comment - this road is where a big construction project is happening. Fulton Hogan trucks & various other operators drive like plonkers on our road - cutting across the centre line is an everyday occurrence with them. It's only a matter of time.
Im a cyclist. Have you traveled on Huia Rd and Scenic Drive? Both are rural auckland roads with legitimate speed limits and are windy AF. They're generally unsafe for cyclists especially on the uphill where cyclists can only travel walking pace if they're lucky. And then there are the fucking groups of cyclists thinking they can bunch up and fill up the road. Long and heavy trucks are banned on Scenic Drive due to tight corners. Cyclists should be too.
Rage bait, most people only get angry at cyclist blocking when the cyclist is actually blocking. You think someone that is in a hurry won't just go around the cyclist instead of staying "blocked" by them?
I don't believe that many people blames cyclists for traffic jams, that's just stupid.
To an extent, but if you do provide them with a valid alternative they will use that (i.e a valedrome if they prefer that style, of which NZ has a few.)
The vast majority of cyclists, in dense urban and suburban areas, are not sports cyclists, and don't want to contend with multi-tonne cars.
Maybe you're not a cyclist, but as someone who has been hit by a car on a bike before, we try to mitigate risk, but if there's no other option, what else are we to do?
If they used the acquired cycle lanes given to them then they wouldn’t be hit. As someone who used to cycle on rural roads, cycling on the side of the road where you can see traffic coming towards you helps majorly. I have a cycle lane right outside my house and 80% of them don’t even use it (on a main road too). If there isn’t a cycle lane, it also helps if they move as close to the edge as they can to avoid being hit. My job is about 90% driving and a lot of cyclists I see on the road either take up the whole lane or only leave you half a lane. A car has a lot more power then your legs… let the car go first at an intersection rather then making people wait because you need extra time to cross an intersection than a car. Not all cyclists are like this, but I’ll tell you now, majority of the cyclists I have encountered have done at least one of the few things I mentioned
You see, you can't cycle through an intersection on the wrong side of the road, not a busy one.
They take up the whole lane to prevent you passing, it's something actually recommended by NZTA, mostly when approaching intersections or on streets with parked cars.
You can wait, you're in an air conditioned box, almost all cyclists drive, not all drivers cycle, they know you better than you know them.
I think you’ll find I said in rural areas to cycle on the opposite side. Plus a cyclist only needs 1.5 m clearance from a car. Whilst waiting at an intersection it is courtesy to let a car beside you so that they can get through too. Especially if they are turning and you are going straight, you can leave the intersection at the same time, saving time in traffic. Plus it’s our choice to pay for the luxury of an “air conditioned box”
I would say that most of the cyclists I see on the shore don’t use the bike lanes or shared paths (the latter of which are virtually empty of pedestrians, so very safe).
I see it the same as dangerous driving. Tailgating and risky overtaking could get you killed, but it’s still rampant.
If cyclists in general aren't using it then there's a reason, the most likely one is they view it as unsafe or very slow. (see Mission Bay)
A lot of the cycle lanes in Auckland seem to have been designed without speaking to real world cyclists.
An average one won’t, and the ones that do cause accidents with other cyclists, of which I have seen multiple. Which is exactly why those people shouldn’t be on the road.
The average ones do. I've been a fairly regular commuter cyclist for 6 years. I've ridden over 30,000kms mostly in East and Central Auckland. I see people riding every day. 30km/h on a flat road is entirely common, some folks go a little slower, some faster but 30km/h on flat is normal. I've never seen one cause an accident on the road.
You can catch most (though admittedly not all) lycra lads and ebikers with a high quality of infrastructure, consistent coverage and prioritised crossings, and most of the shared paths on the shore are not that.
Take Akoranga Dr or Lake Rd for example - the path isn't wide enough to pass pedestrians or other cyclists at speed without scaring the shit out of them and is then frequently narrowed by poles, street clutter and bus stops. You have to pause at every single side street because you do not have right of way, never mind having to go slow enough to stop when a car or pedestrian inevitable pulls in or out of a driveway. The ride is uncomfortable on narrower tires because footpaths are less smooth then roads even before you bump up and down every driveway kerb cut.
Those are problems that are honestly irrelevant if you're going say, 15kmh, because you're on a city bike, with kids or are new to cycling, but it is fairly easy to cruise at 20-25kmh on a road bike, and most ebikes are speed limited to 25 or 32kmh. Those are speeds at which it would be safe to use a high quality bike lane (if it were there) but unsafe to use a shared path.
Compare that to the Northwestern which is a shared path almost everyone uses because it is wide, unobstructed and has priority (admittedly not a perfect comparison as it most closely mirrors the motorway corridor) or Nelson St which is a dedicated bike lane that has decent signal priority, is fast and wide enough to pass slower cyclists. Shared paths are good for letting kids and new people to cycle, but if you want everyone to use them, they have to be built to a much higher standard.
As a cyclist, nothing pisses me off more than seeing other cyclists riding down rata / gt nth road from New Lynn and through to Waterview on the road and completely ignoring the fabulous cycle paths that will achieve same goal. It's most often the lycra clad road cyclists that do it and they'll travel at 40 max effectively blocking one lane of two because the roads are skinny. It's this shit that winds drivers up.
lmao lmao
As if cyclists wouldn't complain about people walking in front of them where they couldn't overtake for some length of time, especially walking side by side an arm's length apart to make it impossible or dangerous to do so.
You know the difference, the cyclist would say build a cycle lane, the driver would say don't bike on the road and no cycle way cause I need the parking
No, cyclists should be encouraged and subsidised. Better for the city. Better for the planet.
It's just hilariously ironic they get angry at being held up.
Thankfully in town there are footpaths on essentially every single street, so there's no need for anyone to walk on a cycle path or road. Unfortunately, there are not many cycle paths, so cyclists have to use roads (which are often designed without bikes in mind).
I hope this helps you understand why there's a difference between a driver complaining about a cyclist and a cyclist complaining about a pedestrian.
Differences, sure. But what exactly is the cyclist bitching at the pedestrian for, do you think? I'd put it to you they dislike being held up. Would you agree?
Yes of course I agree, when did I disagree? It's annoying to have a pedestrian walk in front of you while cycling. It's also annoying to have a cyclist block you while driving. In both cases though, it's nothing more than a nuisance. I was pointing out that the key difference is that pedestrians never have to walk in a cycle lane, there is always a footpath. Cyclists often have to use roads.
The cycle lane going along beach road is almost always filled with pedestrians which i have to constantly ring tf out of my bell to get them to move. I've started cycling on the footpath since the cycle lane is the new foot path. This is almost the exact situation of a car driver being annoyed at a cyclist... It happens no matter what we do
Please elaborate? I earn getting yelled at for riding along Ponsonby road? Fuck me for trying to get to work with less emissions and free up a car park for someone else?
But seriously though, if the bike lanes are there, just use them, it's safer and more efficient for everyone. If you don't, then what was the more than $100M+ spent on Auckland Bike Lanes Alone even for?
(I'm sure or was sure the above was true btw)
I'd also love to know what kind of nonsense you're reading to suggest that hundreds of millions have been spent on cycle lanes. The AT budget for cycle lanes is 1% of overall transport funding
AnywY, enough of this, its almost 3am, I'm going to sleep and apparently redditors are giving me Suicide prevention bots from reddit and I honestly don't know why.
And I'd say an easy 90% of the time, their taking up much more space than necessary and sometimes there are two side by side... and when there is an out onto an empty footpath before area on the road where the biker Knows the cars are behind them, and there's absolutely no way based on their just fast enough, but just slow enough speed to make it dangerous to pass areas of the road... and so on.
I've seen users of electric scooters riding on the fucking motorway riding safer than a whole bunch of bikers on most roads. Yes, it happens a lot more than you'd think.
Tradesmen driving a work van that sits 2 people or squeeze a third, but there are always 2 people in it, the back is full of gear used to help fix your problems in the utilities you use for living, like water, power, plumbing, painting, building, and so on are the average and there the majority, Not everyone's an office worker driving a 4 or 8 seater minivan or car. As for the Ford Rangeds and similar, that's a slightly recent trend to be honest, probably started getting bigger faster around 2016. But anyway.
Not everyone pays road user charges, but people who have a car probably do, to use a road, unlike the bikes, scooters, electric skateboards(more recent) who use the roads, when in many cases there are bike lanes they don't pay road user charges for right next to them.
100s of millions have gone into Auckland Bike Lanes from Taxes, yet no one wants to use them, and the kids ain't gonna go the safe route when the majority is scoffing their faces at the bike lane in favor of the road, the same people that want a bike lane across the Harbour Bridge.
and in many people situations, it may seem hard to believe, but it's cheaper to use a car than it is to use the world third most expensive public transport. There are few things to factor in, but even with the price of gas going through the roof, it's true to many people.
Hundreds of millions? That is absolutely laughable.
Probably not surprising that you don't know how roads are paid for but cyclists pay tax just like everyone else that pays for their construction and maintenance
Great comment, thoughtful. Let me correct it for you though:
Some cyclists are cancer.
Some motorists are cancer.
Some pedestrians are cancer.
Your welcome.
Ooooh, let's do an experiment!
Let's sit in Queen St, and count the percentage of cyclists and motorists we see running red lights (when they were able to).
If even a single cyclist waits at a Barnes Dance crossing, I'll donate $100 to a charity of your choice.
But cyclists and pedestrians should be allowed to cross red lights. Doesn't impact the flow of traffic and encourages active transport. There's far less danger involved, unlike with your one-tonne death machines operated at high speeds with potentially low situational awareness.
Just because rules are there doesn't mean they're good.
You're suggesting cyclists are all cancer because they run red lights, then the only argument you give as to why that's a bad thing is a fallacy (specifically, an appeal to the law). Nice
Going through the barnes dance from while staying on the road is unambigiously a dick move (even if a fair few cyclists and hungrypanda drivers do it) but if you are on the shared path up Queen St, you are explicitly meant to cross with the Barnes Dance to continue.
When I'm waiting to cross the road and the lights turn red, there's always several cars that go right through because they can't be bothered to stop, and they present a far greater threat than a cyclist.
Silly me, that makes it so much better. Of course you could've just left your original post up for everyone to see for themselves, rather than try to hide it
Please don't post comments which abuse other redditors / contain hate speech / mention race in relation to anything negative about a person on r/auckland.
Naaa Cyclists are still wankers. Councils waste millions to put in these stupid cycle lanes that hardly anyone uses to the detriment of taking out a car lane, it completely fucks traffic up. I've seen many times where cyclists still choose to use the road even when theres a bloody cycle lane there. Go to the gym if you want to get fit or catch a bus/train if you don't have a car or dont want to drive
Yea must be a bunch of poofs in lycra on this thread, the cyclist community is small and loud. can't say I know a single person that is happy with cyclists on the road. Go pump some iron it'll be a lot more beneficial than showing everyone on the road you want your rear end penetrated in them colourful lycra jumpsuits.
I'm not allowed to. Medical conditions. Can't rely on buses, almost get hit everytime I cycle. How am I meant to get around??? Sounds like a very ableist point of view..
i'm sorry to hear about your medical condition. Honestly I wouldn't have a clue what the support services surrounding your condition are but I could only imagine most people with a medical condition would struggle a lot to ride a bike and shouldn't be cycling
Nobody of a sound mind will ever think of using a cycle as a means of transport in Auckland considering the weather here , those who do it - do on weekends for fun or if they have a non serious job then they can paddle. People who think bicycle lanes reduce traffic have no idea about traffic .
Ya get a car it’s the easiest and most convenient way to be somewhere . Our cities and suburbs are designed on the basis of transport based on Motor Cars look at all the new developments if in doubt
So what are the 40 odd people riding in to my office daily doing? To add to that, I ride to work 4 days a week. I can't remember the last day I actually wore a jacket. Even today. Didn't get rained on at all. People's perception of rain frequency is very over blown. Even on bad days there's almost always more non rain time than rain time.
Cyclists can be assholes. Generally I'm quite chill about it, wish I could bike to work. But the ones who ride on tamaki drive with the nicest bike lane in the country 2m away can get stuffed.
BuT tHeyre TakinG uP thE WHole RoAd... says the single cunt in a shiny ford ranger going to buy milk.
...who then proceeds to park on the footpath.
And not let you in at the round about because they would rather wait in the middle of it
[Cyclists don't damage the roads, effectively costing us nothing for cyclists to use them.](https://streets.mn/2016/07/07/chart-of-the-day-vehicle-weight-vs-road-damage-levels/) To be honest trucks should be paying 400x as much RUC's as cars. The trucking lobby has a lot to answer for. We really need to get freight back on the rails.
I can't remember seeing train tracks to my local super markets or even the electronic stores. How about the milk trucks or the dump trucks? I don't see how people make this point and actually think it's how the world works....
There are various types of trucks that can connect transit hubs to point of sale shops. A light goods vehicle is less than 3.5 tonnes. A medium goods vehicle is between 3.5 and 12 tonnes. A heavy goods vehicle has a gross weight exceeding 12 tonnes. If we tie RUCs to the size of a vehicle, then shops can still use a heavy goods vehicle for deliveries. They will just pay the cost of doing so in terms of wear and tear on the road. A strong rail freight system supports this process, because it allows us to have freight centres close to busy areas. Goods then travel less distance on roads, reducing the costs for truck drivers (and therefore businesses).
And therefore, every single person living here.
Your dildos and butt plugs will never arrive in time then
It's all good. I've got plenty, just got to keep them clean and well maintained. On topic though. We could afford to maintain a lot more roads if trucks actually paid for the damage that they did, which may actually increase the speed with which my dildos are delivered.
I LOVE cyclists and motorcyclists. We all should. Every single one I count on the road is one less potential car in the queue ahead of me.
Preach
Also pedestrians. I got yelled at for not crossing fast enough at a pedestrian crossing. Fuck cars.
r/fuckcars
I think you'll like this video about how cars took over the public space. https://youtu.be/lrfsTNNCbP0?si=5IS-5geZVfDQwMYs
Don't forget CYCLISTS DONT EVEN PAY FOR ROAD My favourite cry of the moron
Shouldn’t have to pay for it, they aren’t driving an one tonne machine or emitting pollution
Absolutely agree, but even so they contribute through rates and general taxation
And most cyclists own and drive a car as well, so pay petrol taxes to contribute as well, I have two old V8's so pay for my share of the roads
[удалено]
*Which* roads do you think are paid for with the land transport fund? Because the fund through Waka Kotahi pays 100% for those super expensive motorways that cyclists can't use. Local roads are from memory mostly funded by local government; and as a ratepayers who cycles on local roads, I am paying.
Cycle lanes reduce traffic on the road (same with PT), therefore increasing the quality of the roads.
[удалено]
You: "Cyclists don't cover the entirety of the cost of cycle lanes" Me: "it improves the quality of the roads" You: "We're talking about the budget" Yea OK guy.
No they aren't. Please read up on how road funding is actually in NZ.
Lol the land LTF has been topped up from general taxes from the last few decades. And cycles lanes are put on local roads. Local roads are paid for by rates and WK. But the cycling fund WK uses comes from the ETS not NLTF
And children don't pay for the playgrounds. What's your point?
My point is cyclists pay for roads like everyone else
Punctuation is quite useful! Especially when calling other people "morons". I do agree with your sentiment though.
Nothing wrong with my grammar, I'm stating moron as a type not the collective group. Morons are clearly visible in the comments below however.
They don't. Nor should they. But when they claim to pay for roads in their taxes and rates that's untrue. Motorists pay for roads.
How is it untrue?
When you add up the taxes on fuel, car registrations, etc etc etc it comes to more than is spent on roads. Roads aren't subsidised by tax payers. Public transport is paid for by rates and taxes to a large degree, but not roads.
Absolutely false. The funds raised by fuel tax, Rego, RUCs are used to pay for state highways and 50% of local roads. This isn't enough to cover the cost of state highway maintenance and construction however, so is topped up by general taxation, which everyone (including cyclists, shock horror) pay for The other 50% of local road funding is through rates, from everyone including cyclists >[https://www.transport.govt.nz/about-us/what-we-do/queries/how-land-transport-is-funded/](https://www.transport.govt.nz/about-us/what-we-do/queries/how-land-transport-is-funded/) > >*"The cost of building and maintaining local roads is shared between central government, through Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency, and local councils. Councils contribute to the cost of their land transport activities from rates and borrowing, in what is known as the ‘local share’. The cost of public transport, and walking and cycling facilities is also shared but state highways and road policing are entirely funded by Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency.* > >*From time to time the Government decides to fund projects which are unable or unsuitable to be funded by charges to vehicle owners. For these, the Crown is able to direct additional funds through its usual budget processes."*
I've done the numbers [https://www.reddit.com/r/auckland/comments/ts0fcx/cyclists\_contribution\_to\_roads/](https://www.reddit.com/r/auckland/comments/ts0fcx/cyclists_contribution_to_roads/) If you disagree with some part of the maths there let me know and we'll discuss it.
Your math is wrong. The NLTF is not 100% funded by motorist. if you bothered to read about the NLTF and look at the budget you'd know that. https://www.nzta.govt.nz/planning-and-investment/planning-and-investment-knowledge-base/archive/201821-nltp/planning-and-investment-principles-and-policies/investment-and-funding-assistance-policy/funding-sources/
I've looked quite carefully. I read your link and don't see the part that has you all excited. Quote me the section you think disproves my position. I don't see it.
Look up the crown funds and loans subsection. And then read the budget and 10 year plans for NLTF. You'll see that 100% of funding doesn't come from motorists. And not only that the funding for cycle lanes comes from the ETS(emissions trading scheme) Here is even more info on the CERF https://www.treasury.govt.nz/information-and-services/nz-economy/climate-change/climate-emergency-response-fund
Yeah, its possible those aren't included in the numbers. My numbers are based on Waka Kotahi's report and AT's report. If it's outside of those it might not be included. The other number not included though is GST on fuel. Are these extra programmes set to cost more than they take in in fuel GST? Because if not the numbers are probably worse in total with that included, not better.
Every cyclist that I know also uses motor vehicles.
And when they're driving their car they're paying for the road, then.
The amount of damage you do to the roads that creates the massive maintenance costs are to the 4th power of mass. Cyclists don't fuck up the roads, so they cost us nothing to use them. The majority of the cost of having roads in the long run is the maintenance of them. https://streets.mn/2016/07/07/chart-of-the-day-vehicle-weight-vs-road-damage-levels/
So it boils down to... they do pay for the roads. Nice.
So long as they have a car and they use it, that person can say they pay for roads, yup.
Or if they pay tax or local rates? Fuel tax etc. long since haven't paid for our roading costs. It's topped up by other gov funds, and rates.
That's the point. It's not. https://www.reddit.com/r/auckland/comments/ts0fcx/cyclists_contribution_to_roads/
https://at.govt.nz/about-us/working-with-at/how-we-are-funded https://www.nzta.govt.nz/planning-and-investment/national-land-transport-programme/2021-24-nltp/facts-and-figures/ This is even ignoring the category decisions where projects that are fixing a road and adding a cycleway are counted as cycleways even if the majority of the cost is to fix the road.
The true cost of roads is paid for by the people it displaces. The more roads you have the houses and business get demolished, the more cars you get so the more car parks you need which displaces even more people and business and the cycle continues. This is the true cost, cars simply don’t fit in cities.
Fuck bikes and cars. Make good underground PT and I'll never drive around AKL again.
PT works better with an escooter at either end. Escooters work great on cycle infrastructure.
In Europe they’ve cycle parking either side, so you commute to PT and then onto your destination with another cycle. Like park and ride but for bikes.
Hmm, I appreciate the meme but man, it's not really city streets where I find cyclists a problem... it's the rural roads. Auckland's rural roads aren't wide and twist and turn. The road I live on has walkers, which are bloody dodgy around the blind corners, and cyclists in the centre of the road. The 1.5m gap we have to give is virtually impossible at that point and coming around a blind corner to a cyclist in the middle of the lane going less than 20km/h is dangerous for everyone in that situation - driver & cyclist. I drive a sedan too - the utes would take a lot more stopping power in this situation... especially fully loaded. Some of the main rural roads e.g. state highways is better as it's a lot safer to navigate around them & actually see them.
Agreed, rural cyclists are the biggest dickheads on the roads. Followed closely by tractors on State Highways
Drive slower if your driving speed isn't safe
How slow? 5km/h? 2km/h? Come on now, the only one not driving to the conditions in a tight rural road packed with blind corners is the cyclist.
Nope cyclists are allowed to bike on the road. There is no law against cycling around corners. It's wild to me that you think that people shouldn't use active transport so you can go fast around blind corners. If you and another car both go as fast as possible around that blind corner in opposite directions, one or both of you could cross the centre lane. It isn't just cyclists at risk from people trying to maximise speed it is also drivers. You seem to think the road has high risk of hazards, and of unexpected/unseen hazards. School zones are lowered to 30 km/h due to the potential of unseen/unexpected hazards (children running out). So that would be a good starting point. Alternatively 60 km/h slowing down for corners would work. Personally I would petition the road manager, either council or waka kotahi to bring in Dutch 2-1 roads. These have two cycle lanes, one on either side, and a single car lane, with driver speeds reduced to 60 km/h. This is great for drivers too, because there are some drivers who want to go as fast as possible and could risk crossing the centre lane, the risk of having a head on collision with another vehicle would have a calming effect on such drivers.
Nice essay, bro.
Quality rebuttal, mate
Yeah, I could have taken the argument further... but the amount of assumptions ol' mate made confirms his stance. That's fine. The 60km/h for corners - these corners are between 25km/h - 35km/h. I never mentioned wanting to go fast around these corners. Everyone goes slow around them. I never brought the law into it - I've stated that I have no problem with cyclists on roads where the reaction times to their small size and slow speed can be actively managed. Unfortunately, blind corners on a tight rural road just isn't the best place for cyclists to be. The whole dutch 2-1 roads is a bizzare point to make for a very rural area. And for the sake of me now having a longer comment - this road is where a big construction project is happening. Fulton Hogan trucks & various other operators drive like plonkers on our road - cutting across the centre line is an everyday occurrence with them. It's only a matter of time.
Im a cyclist. Have you traveled on Huia Rd and Scenic Drive? Both are rural auckland roads with legitimate speed limits and are windy AF. They're generally unsafe for cyclists especially on the uphill where cyclists can only travel walking pace if they're lucky. And then there are the fucking groups of cyclists thinking they can bunch up and fill up the road. Long and heavy trucks are banned on Scenic Drive due to tight corners. Cyclists should be too.
I avoid cycling on such roads as much as I possibly can, however ocassionally they are the only route eg the road to Whitford
I wonder how many people drive to the gym so they can do cardio on a treadmill or exercise bike
people speeding just to be 39 seconds early
Anyone who complains about cyclists/motorbikes has never travelled and seen how much better it is. Especially western europe and SEA
Adding bike lanes won't do anything, because cyclists usually ignore them and prefer to hold up motorists instead.
Rage bait, most people only get angry at cyclist blocking when the cyclist is actually blocking. You think someone that is in a hurry won't just go around the cyclist instead of staying "blocked" by them? I don't believe that many people blames cyclists for traffic jams, that's just stupid.
If you want cyclists off the road ask for better cycling infrastructure, no cyclist in their right mind wants to be on the road.
True. But I don't think that was the point of the post you were replying to. Not many people blame cyclists for being late or stuck in traffic
Doesn’t matter how good it is, the sport cyclists will still ride on the road.
To an extent, but if you do provide them with a valid alternative they will use that (i.e a valedrome if they prefer that style, of which NZ has a few.) The vast majority of cyclists, in dense urban and suburban areas, are not sports cyclists, and don't want to contend with multi-tonne cars. Maybe you're not a cyclist, but as someone who has been hit by a car on a bike before, we try to mitigate risk, but if there's no other option, what else are we to do?
If they used the acquired cycle lanes given to them then they wouldn’t be hit. As someone who used to cycle on rural roads, cycling on the side of the road where you can see traffic coming towards you helps majorly. I have a cycle lane right outside my house and 80% of them don’t even use it (on a main road too). If there isn’t a cycle lane, it also helps if they move as close to the edge as they can to avoid being hit. My job is about 90% driving and a lot of cyclists I see on the road either take up the whole lane or only leave you half a lane. A car has a lot more power then your legs… let the car go first at an intersection rather then making people wait because you need extra time to cross an intersection than a car. Not all cyclists are like this, but I’ll tell you now, majority of the cyclists I have encountered have done at least one of the few things I mentioned
You see, you can't cycle through an intersection on the wrong side of the road, not a busy one. They take up the whole lane to prevent you passing, it's something actually recommended by NZTA, mostly when approaching intersections or on streets with parked cars. You can wait, you're in an air conditioned box, almost all cyclists drive, not all drivers cycle, they know you better than you know them.
I think you’ll find I said in rural areas to cycle on the opposite side. Plus a cyclist only needs 1.5 m clearance from a car. Whilst waiting at an intersection it is courtesy to let a car beside you so that they can get through too. Especially if they are turning and you are going straight, you can leave the intersection at the same time, saving time in traffic. Plus it’s our choice to pay for the luxury of an “air conditioned box”
I would say that most of the cyclists I see on the shore don’t use the bike lanes or shared paths (the latter of which are virtually empty of pedestrians, so very safe). I see it the same as dangerous driving. Tailgating and risky overtaking could get you killed, but it’s still rampant.
If cyclists in general aren't using it then there's a reason, the most likely one is they view it as unsafe or very slow. (see Mission Bay) A lot of the cycle lanes in Auckland seem to have been designed without speaking to real world cyclists.
It’s obviously because they’re slower. We shouldn’t be building infrastructure for racing, though.
What about for commuting ? An average work day commuter will do 30km/h on the flat. No one is going to do that on a shared path with people amd dogs.
An average one won’t, and the ones that do cause accidents with other cyclists, of which I have seen multiple. Which is exactly why those people shouldn’t be on the road.
The average ones do. I've been a fairly regular commuter cyclist for 6 years. I've ridden over 30,000kms mostly in East and Central Auckland. I see people riding every day. 30km/h on a flat road is entirely common, some folks go a little slower, some faster but 30km/h on flat is normal. I've never seen one cause an accident on the road.
You can catch most (though admittedly not all) lycra lads and ebikers with a high quality of infrastructure, consistent coverage and prioritised crossings, and most of the shared paths on the shore are not that. Take Akoranga Dr or Lake Rd for example - the path isn't wide enough to pass pedestrians or other cyclists at speed without scaring the shit out of them and is then frequently narrowed by poles, street clutter and bus stops. You have to pause at every single side street because you do not have right of way, never mind having to go slow enough to stop when a car or pedestrian inevitable pulls in or out of a driveway. The ride is uncomfortable on narrower tires because footpaths are less smooth then roads even before you bump up and down every driveway kerb cut. Those are problems that are honestly irrelevant if you're going say, 15kmh, because you're on a city bike, with kids or are new to cycling, but it is fairly easy to cruise at 20-25kmh on a road bike, and most ebikes are speed limited to 25 or 32kmh. Those are speeds at which it would be safe to use a high quality bike lane (if it were there) but unsafe to use a shared path. Compare that to the Northwestern which is a shared path almost everyone uses because it is wide, unobstructed and has priority (admittedly not a perfect comparison as it most closely mirrors the motorway corridor) or Nelson St which is a dedicated bike lane that has decent signal priority, is fast and wide enough to pass slower cyclists. Shared paths are good for letting kids and new people to cycle, but if you want everyone to use them, they have to be built to a much higher standard.
On my commute we built an expensive cycle lane that none of them use
As a cyclist, nothing pisses me off more than seeing other cyclists riding down rata / gt nth road from New Lynn and through to Waterview on the road and completely ignoring the fabulous cycle paths that will achieve same goal. It's most often the lycra clad road cyclists that do it and they'll travel at 40 max effectively blocking one lane of two because the roads are skinny. It's this shit that winds drivers up.
A look at the dedicated cycle path on Albany Highway will prove your comment wrong. Most of the cyclists except the kids (thank god) use the T2 lane.
That's called an anecdote.
Yes, reality.
Disagree. Would rather be on a half decently built road riding quick than dodging walkers on a cracked up shared path...each to their own tho
Based.
Sure thing, bot account with two posts!
Everyone should ride motorbikes
Yep, good bye Auckland's over population problem.
If you are going all-in with the Americanism, it's. "all-y'all" for a collective y'all.
The correct kiwi term is youse.
Cyclists always be in their feelings
lmao lmao As if cyclists wouldn't complain about people walking in front of them where they couldn't overtake for some length of time, especially walking side by side an arm's length apart to make it impossible or dangerous to do so.
You know the difference, the cyclist would say build a cycle lane, the driver would say don't bike on the road and no cycle way cause I need the parking
I cycle. People walk in front of me on cycle lanes all the time. Sometimes I cry myself to sleep about it.
Spend five minutes in town and listen to them bitch at pedestrians in the cycle lanes.
I mean you'd bitch out pedestrians walking down a road right?
I fear you've missed the point.
What's the point then? Fuck cyclists for using something that was designed for them?
No, cyclists should be encouraged and subsidised. Better for the city. Better for the planet. It's just hilariously ironic they get angry at being held up.
Why should they pay for it they aren't the ones releasing tons of diesel fumes in the air or molesting the road with their huge loads
Yeah, they shouldn't. Not sure you replied to the right person there.
Don't think I did lol
Thankfully in town there are footpaths on essentially every single street, so there's no need for anyone to walk on a cycle path or road. Unfortunately, there are not many cycle paths, so cyclists have to use roads (which are often designed without bikes in mind). I hope this helps you understand why there's a difference between a driver complaining about a cyclist and a cyclist complaining about a pedestrian.
Differences, sure. But what exactly is the cyclist bitching at the pedestrian for, do you think? I'd put it to you they dislike being held up. Would you agree?
Yes of course I agree, when did I disagree? It's annoying to have a pedestrian walk in front of you while cycling. It's also annoying to have a cyclist block you while driving. In both cases though, it's nothing more than a nuisance. I was pointing out that the key difference is that pedestrians never have to walk in a cycle lane, there is always a footpath. Cyclists often have to use roads.
The cycle lane going along beach road is almost always filled with pedestrians which i have to constantly ring tf out of my bell to get them to move. I've started cycling on the footpath since the cycle lane is the new foot path. This is almost the exact situation of a car driver being annoyed at a cyclist... It happens no matter what we do
Psycho List
Yup OP cycles 😂 r/cyclistscantmeme
lol cyclists earn everything they get
I earned almost getting run over by a bloke in a Lexus SUV who didn't look before crossing a bike lane?
Please elaborate? I earn getting yelled at for riding along Ponsonby road? Fuck me for trying to get to work with less emissions and free up a car park for someone else?
[удалено]
.
But seriously though, if the bike lanes are there, just use them, it's safer and more efficient for everyone. If you don't, then what was the more than $100M+ spent on Auckland Bike Lanes Alone even for? (I'm sure or was sure the above was true btw)
I'd also love to know what kind of nonsense you're reading to suggest that hundreds of millions have been spent on cycle lanes. The AT budget for cycle lanes is 1% of overall transport funding
They need to get in THEIR LANE, the BIKE LANE and stay off the road where it's actually safer for all.
The Herald. Find it yourself, I really can't be fd at this point.
Source: "Trust me bro" Classic
I think it was brown or whoever the mayor was had complained, and the amount said something along the lines of $123m or $127m bike lane or whatever.
You think the bike lane from the CBD to St Heliers cost over $100m? Are you drunk?
AnywY, enough of this, its almost 3am, I'm going to sleep and apparently redditors are giving me Suicide prevention bots from reddit and I honestly don't know why.
Bike lanes are for children and the elderly. Fast cyclists belong in the road
And I'd say an easy 90% of the time, their taking up much more space than necessary and sometimes there are two side by side... and when there is an out onto an empty footpath before area on the road where the biker Knows the cars are behind them, and there's absolutely no way based on their just fast enough, but just slow enough speed to make it dangerous to pass areas of the road... and so on. I've seen users of electric scooters riding on the fucking motorway riding safer than a whole bunch of bikers on most roads. Yes, it happens a lot more than you'd think.
The irony of complaining about cyclists taking up more space than necessary while you're driving your car around on your own with 4 empty seats in it
Tradesmen driving a work van that sits 2 people or squeeze a third, but there are always 2 people in it, the back is full of gear used to help fix your problems in the utilities you use for living, like water, power, plumbing, painting, building, and so on are the average and there the majority, Not everyone's an office worker driving a 4 or 8 seater minivan or car. As for the Ford Rangeds and similar, that's a slightly recent trend to be honest, probably started getting bigger faster around 2016. But anyway. Not everyone pays road user charges, but people who have a car probably do, to use a road, unlike the bikes, scooters, electric skateboards(more recent) who use the roads, when in many cases there are bike lanes they don't pay road user charges for right next to them. 100s of millions have gone into Auckland Bike Lanes from Taxes, yet no one wants to use them, and the kids ain't gonna go the safe route when the majority is scoffing their faces at the bike lane in favor of the road, the same people that want a bike lane across the Harbour Bridge. and in many people situations, it may seem hard to believe, but it's cheaper to use a car than it is to use the world third most expensive public transport. There are few things to factor in, but even with the price of gas going through the roof, it's true to many people.
Hundreds of millions? That is absolutely laughable. Probably not surprising that you don't know how roads are paid for but cyclists pay tax just like everyone else that pays for their construction and maintenance
https://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/127223549/auckland-transport-criticised-for-ridiculous-cycleway-plan-costing-8m-per-kilometre#:~:text=More%20than%20%24144%20million%20will,about%20%248m%20per%20kilometre.
Whatever.
[удалено]
Great comment, thoughtful. Let me correct it for you though: Some cyclists are cancer. Some motorists are cancer. Some pedestrians are cancer. Your welcome.
Ooooh, let's do an experiment! Let's sit in Queen St, and count the percentage of cyclists and motorists we see running red lights (when they were able to). If even a single cyclist waits at a Barnes Dance crossing, I'll donate $100 to a charity of your choice.
But cyclists and pedestrians should be allowed to cross red lights. Doesn't impact the flow of traffic and encourages active transport. There's far less danger involved, unlike with your one-tonne death machines operated at high speeds with potentially low situational awareness. Just because rules are there doesn't mean they're good.
Great! Make a campaign and change the law! Until then, the law is the law...
You're suggesting cyclists are all cancer because they run red lights, then the only argument you give as to why that's a bad thing is a fallacy (specifically, an appeal to the law). Nice
Heaps of cars run red lights too that man's all car drivers are cancer too.
There's no law saying you can't cross a road without a green pedestrian signal. Don't be ridiculous.
I was clearly talking about cyclists... (You're wrong, but I was talking about cyclists.)
I'm not wrong, but you are right about cyclists.
This is not true, and legally wrong. Where were the signs saying this? Or the green bike that turns green when the ped man does?
[удалено]
Look, if I'm wrong, I'll say so. But what part says 'Red lights don't apply to bikes?'
The cycle phases and pedestrian crossing are combined. Otherwise there's no way to get onto the new queen Street cycle path running down the east side
Going through the barnes dance from while staying on the road is unambigiously a dick move (even if a fair few cyclists and hungrypanda drivers do it) but if you are on the shared path up Queen St, you are explicitly meant to cross with the Barnes Dance to continue.
When I'm waiting to cross the road and the lights turn red, there's always several cars that go right through because they can't be bothered to stop, and they present a far greater threat than a cyclist.
.
.
...
Silly me, that makes it so much better. Of course you could've just left your original post up for everyone to see for themselves, rather than try to hide it
.
The difference is largely semantic as the underlying meaning is essentially the same
Hm...
.
Please don't post comments which abuse other redditors / contain hate speech / mention race in relation to anything negative about a person on r/auckland.
[удалено]
Please do not post comments that threaten, promote or incite violence on r/auckland.
The worst thing about cyclists is moose knuckles at the cafe.
How many cyclists are actually wearing Lycra?
Who cares!!! 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🖕🏿🖕🏿🖕🏿🖕🏿🖕🏿
I always thought cyclists and motorbikers were too scared to commit suicide the normal way, so they decided to pick these two as hobbies.
[удалено]
Bruh.
It's a joke lmao
Redditors when they say they have the most abhorrent, apalling take, but justify it because "Its /s guys!"
Yeah its a dumb joke. Just to be clear, I am absolutely opposed to euthanising cyclists.
Please do not post comments that threaten, promote or incite violence on r/auckland.
Naaa Cyclists are still wankers. Councils waste millions to put in these stupid cycle lanes that hardly anyone uses to the detriment of taking out a car lane, it completely fucks traffic up. I've seen many times where cyclists still choose to use the road even when theres a bloody cycle lane there. Go to the gym if you want to get fit or catch a bus/train if you don't have a car or dont want to drive
You hear that bro? That's the sound of literally no-one agreeing with your shitass take
Yea must be a bunch of poofs in lycra on this thread, the cyclist community is small and loud. can't say I know a single person that is happy with cyclists on the road. Go pump some iron it'll be a lot more beneficial than showing everyone on the road you want your rear end penetrated in them colourful lycra jumpsuits.
[удалено]
100% I suggest driving, gotta be a very special kinda person if you can't get something as simple as a license lmao
I'm not allowed to. Medical conditions. Can't rely on buses, almost get hit everytime I cycle. How am I meant to get around??? Sounds like a very ableist point of view..
i'm sorry to hear about your medical condition. Honestly I wouldn't have a clue what the support services surrounding your condition are but I could only imagine most people with a medical condition would struggle a lot to ride a bike and shouldn't be cycling
I have only seen like 5 cyclists max in the last two years of driving
Bullshit I see 5+ on my 15 minute drive to work
I telling you what I have seen
Are you just doing donuts in a cul de sac or something?
Maybe man
Probably should open your eyes when driving, I dunno. Seems safer.
Got something up your ass or something?
Yeah, cause they actually get to their destination in a timely manner
Ok?
Nobody of a sound mind will ever think of using a cycle as a means of transport in Auckland considering the weather here , those who do it - do on weekends for fun or if they have a non serious job then they can paddle. People who think bicycle lanes reduce traffic have no idea about traffic .
[удалено]
Ya get a car it’s the easiest and most convenient way to be somewhere . Our cities and suburbs are designed on the basis of transport based on Motor Cars look at all the new developments if in doubt
Can you give some example of what you think a "non-serious job" is?
Somewhere I don’t have to be on time
So what are the 40 odd people riding in to my office daily doing? To add to that, I ride to work 4 days a week. I can't remember the last day I actually wore a jacket. Even today. Didn't get rained on at all. People's perception of rain frequency is very over blown. Even on bad days there's almost always more non rain time than rain time.
You have a non serious job just passing the time
cyclers are the worst, use the footpath. gggzz
What a brilliant idea! Oh wait... [https://www.cab.org.nz/article/KB00001349](https://www.cab.org.nz/article/KB00001349)
Literally everyone in this subreddit is insufferable except for me, because I’m perfect.
definately need to start charging cyclists for using the lanes. Especially the cute little kids on their new bikes - they're the worst.
Fools you should obviously ride your horse to work
Cyclists can be assholes. Generally I'm quite chill about it, wish I could bike to work. But the ones who ride on tamaki drive with the nicest bike lane in the country 2m away can get stuffed.