Plus, this shows what I mentioned earlier – since the average cycle trip is presumably much longer than the average walking trip (lets say 5km vs 2 km though I am just making these numbers up, admittedly), cycling could still be said as being unsafer per trip.

I agree – the devil is in the details, AND cycling is certainly safe enough to go out there. After all, there are also studies which argue that the health benefits (added longevity) due to the exercise you get on a bike are about 20 times the longevity you lose through having accidents while doing it (compared to sitting safely inside, in front of the TV). I’ll take any exercise which gives me increased length of life at a 1:20 rate!

Sorry, I am all for both improving cycle safety, and acknowledge that NZ scaremongering has given cycling a much worse safety rep than it deserves. But it is NOT safer than walking, and it is ridiculous to say it is safer than motoring, because you give no comparisons – are you talking that it is safer “by trip”, “by km travelled”, “by time spent on the road”?

And yeah, I have data to show that (from last year’s MoT discussion document on future road safety strategies):

“In each year over the period 2003-2007 an average of 671 pedestrians were hospitalised and 43 were killed.”

“In each year over the period 2003-2007, an average of 280 cyclists were hospitalised and 10 were killed from
crashes involving a vehicle.” (note that this seems to exclude non-vehicle-related accident deaths)

Since the current levels of walking in NZ are much higher than cycling by anything from a factor 3 (way to work, Census 2006) to much more upwards (when all trips are counted), cycling is clearly still more dangerous. It won’t help the case to simply ignore that.

Cite correct statistics, such as the fact that there are only 46 injury accidents for every 1 million “school children cycle trips” in New Zealand. Or 1 for every 21,739 trips.

A non-starter untill cycling safety improves first

but the fact is that cycling is extremely safe – safer even than walking or gardening. It is even much safer than motoring – but you dont see Steven Joyce forcing motorists to wear polystyrene hats oh no.

Anyway, that NZers — unlike the rest of the world — think cycling is dangerous shows how effective 20 years of anti-cycling propaganda in this country has been.

A non-starter untill cycling safety improves first. Even cycling organisations are bitterly divided on this issue, and have therefore (to my knowledge) mostly decided that they have no policy.

“Legally requiring shopping centres etc to have bike stands to equal 2% of parking space (ie 1000 car parks means space for 20 bikes)”

Some cities in New Zealand already have this. Hamilton’s District Plan has required cycle parking for a long while now:

Parking Lots (excluding car parking buildings) shall provide stands to accommodate
bicycles on the site at the following rates:
• 5 bicycles for car parks of 40 to 100 car parking spaces; and
• one additional bicycle per 20 car parking spaces over 100 spaces.

“Free use of bikes on public transport (setting up a bike and ride similar to park and ride)”

I am split on this. Space in PT is not free (or always available), and I would consider it fair enough to charge, though not charging would obviously be a little boost to cycling.

“Forbid motorists to overtake cyclists at speeds of more than 30kph urban roads 70 kph rural roads (its frightening having cars whizz past a metre away at fast speeds)”

What is the use having another law that is not enforcable? The logical thing would be to reverse the assumption of guilt (or at least assume that motorists automatically bear at least 50% of the blame in ANY collision with a cyclist unless they can prove otherwise). For those who consider this ridiculous – the automatic assumption of guilt on the motorists’s part exists in several countries worldwide, and is at the moment debated in the UK. The idea is that cyclists are less likely to risk their lives than a motorist is likely to risk his paint job, so culpability should take this into account.

“and have speed cameras on volunteer cyclists to enforce this”

And the first time, one of those volunteers tries to ticket a lawyer, what happens? The whole system gets declared illegal. It can be hard enough to give tickets to people even with a sworn officer behind the speed camera.

“Set up a bike hire system next to main transport terminals, where one can hire a bike for $10 for $8 hours. Have bikes stored with electronic locks released when a drivers licence barcode is scanned or credit card details entered into computers to escape theft”

Well, Nextbike is trying to provide public bicycles – but as a small-scale private entity, they cannot go the Paris or London route and set up thousands of bikes. Eventually, this should come here too, I agree.

“Encourage morer kids to bike to school (and reduce pollution) by having parking metres for all car parks near schools, with $2 drop of pick up fee, used to finance free school bus travel.”

Again, the enforcement required to make this technically good idea work would be too difficult. Also, parents would just park further away…

Some good ideas there, though – at the core, what we really need is slower traffic speeds, and more cycling infrastructure.

“Route selection
We propose that initially three compact, circular routes are identified as Great Rides. The routes are easily accessible from the CBD where the majority of tourists stay in Auckland, maximize links to places of interest and provide distinct experiences. We have deliberately chosen routes that utilize the existing and planned cycle network, are under 12km in total and can be completed in a couple of hours as we recognize that visitors to Auckland may be trying cycle touring for the first time and are often time constrained but willing to pack in as much activity as possible.”

Also, the proposed routes are available on Google Maps under the title Great Rides – Auckland .