The July numbers from AT are out here: July Stats
Let’s start with the best news: Cycling
JULY 2012 Cycling
Up 12-14% on last year. Crazy growth in some months, this wants investing in. How much more funding would this get if it was a State Highway? But hey what happened in March? Did it rain all month?
Ok now to less personal forms of movement, here’s the big picture:
JULY 2012 Rolling Total
Six years and 20 odd million extra annual PT trips in Auckland; from some 51m to 71m. Hard to get figures on population growth for this period but it isn’t anywhere near 40%. This is a consistent trend, it is what a change in the zeitgeist looks like. Driving is still dominant but it isn’t the future, it isn’t the growth mode despite getting a vastly disproportionate amount of investment.
And year to date:
JULY 2012 Year-to-Date
Healthy midwinter growth. School Buses the outlier. Otherwise; Ferries, Onehunga, and the Southern + Eastern hybrid numbers just into double digits. Western- meh, and the NEX on the positive side of flat. But overall very good as we know services are not improving in number or frequency and works are ongoing on the rail network for electrification which means weekend closures.
July RTN:
After a couple of skinny months on the RTN network it’s good to see another rise. This will not be the case over the next 3 months however as we get into the Rugby World Cup figures from last year. But the underlying trend continues; there is still increasing demand despite the quality or frequency of the services not increasing. 450k new human trips on the network in one wintery month. Heroic.
Here’s Rail:
Easy to see the RWC spike, but also that the relentless upwards march continues if you smooth the trend. I’m still picking a bit of a hiatus in this growth until the EMUs are fully in operation with their better, more frequent, and more appealing service. As well as the continued disruption that the works will cause until electrification is complete.
The only other new drivers of patronage before then will be the roll out of integrated ticketing with associated bus transfers, possibly….. hard though it is to feel optimistic about any timeline for that.
Then there’s the opening of the new Parnell Station [2014] which could become an interesting off peak destination if enough is done to integrate it with the Domain and Museum, and some ‘turning around’ of the Parnell Village occurs to this sunny and interesting little valley; a great place for a bar and restaurant and can Mainline Steam become some sort of attraction? Of course the real issue is the construction of some pedestrian infrastructure to ‘move’ this station closer to the other side of the motorway severance in an effective and exciting way. I have some students working on this, so in that light:
PT and the active modes in Auckland: a winner worth backing. Discuss.
What’s to discuss? Invest in this modes and Auckland will use it and will be a better place for it. It will certainly make it a place that people will increasingly want to return to after years propping the economy’s of other countries, and a new motorway through Onehunga isn’t going to be the game changer that does that.
I’m glad to see cycling is improving despite Auckland Transport slapping themselves on the back claiming that the regional cycling network is 28% complete. They consider a buslane that is open for 2 hours a day as a complete cycling network. Pathetic.
CAA and the Waitemata Local Board have been hammering on that point for over a year now – did you know that Khyber Pass Road is counted as “complete”, and doesn’t even have bus lanes for most of it? – and in their defense, Auckland Transport are currently reviewing the RCN to reduce such… inconsistencies. It would always be a challenge to get them to “reduce” the number of 28% and “go backwards”, but the next update in a few months should be much more faithful to reality.
To say them calling Khyber Pass Rd complete is an absolute joke.
The bus lane there heading towards the Park Rd lights is half destoyed and pretty dodgy to ride on just because of the pavement, let alone the buses with it.
As for the rest of Khyber Pass Rd, I only use that at about 6am on a Sunday morning as the rest of the time its just too busy and dangerous.
Population growth in the Auckland region between June 2006 and June 2011 was 8.2%. Public Transport patronage is definitely growing much faster than latent population growth.
Seems like rail patronage is flattening. Is that caused by full services?
I think rail patronage flattening would be a combination of full services, which also result in high unintentional fare invasion, and HOP which is making bus use quicker and easier…no need to carry cash. I think we will get a dramatic rise when HOP is implemented on Trains.
Eyeballing that trend it seems we got all the expected growth for twelve months over about two during the RWC. Perhaps it’s just a case of leaping up then being flat for a while until the usual pattern returns. That assumes we haven’t hit the wall in terms of service delivery though.
“I think rail patronage flattening would be a combination of full services, which also result in high unintentional fare invasion…”
I don’t think that fare evasion is ever unintentional, either on the part of the Fare Evader (oops, I forgot to buy a ticket) or the transport planning folks.
If you let the trains get too full, then you can’t collect the fares, nothing unintentional about that.
You could say that higher fare evasion from full trains is an unintended side effect, but again, that presumes you didn’t foresee and then wouldn’t/couldn’t mitigate against it.
But I do take your point, if you rely on sales to calculate your patronage (as AT do) then full trains = reduced/flat sales.
Doesn’t help that we have no proper HOP rollout timeframes for rail yet – have to wonder which of either the EMUs or HOP will be up and running first at this stage!
unintentional was taken in the context of being a passenger on a full train, it’s hard to buy a ticket it you don’t see the ticker.
Since they cannot add cars or services because there’s no spare rolling stock available, the planners are rather limited in what they can do to mitigate. Adding collectors won’t always help, either, since they’re more bodies on the trains and some services are now so full that it’s impossible for any person to move through and collect fares. Calling it unintentional evasion is pretty close to the mark, unless you’re proposing that trains stop taking on passengers once they get so full that collectors cannot move freely?
A fare cordon at Britomart and Newmarket perhaps? Not fare gates yet, but just good old fashioned please show your clipped ticket or pay on the spot. Like they do inbound at the downtown ferry terminal.
It has been speculated that the flattening off of passenger figures is due to high passenger loadings preventing tickets being sold. I agree with this but there is no supporting data most likely because no one has actually done any accurate counts of passengers using rail services. If counts were done at stations along the network for a day or so the figures could be extrapolated against Veolia ticket sales and the resultant offset applied to gain more realistic passenger counts.
One solution to ‘unintentional fare avoidance’ would be to have tickets sold on busy station platforms during the peak periods with the ticket selling staff moving onto trains after the peak and operating as they are at present off peak. No doubt one of the stumbling blocks to this approach is the current requirement that Veolia has around fare collection. If this is the case this should be changed ASAP so that correct revenue is collected and most importantly passenger loadings are accurate. The alternative just plays into the present the government’s hands to say that rail has plateaued and no further need be spent in the near future (and to defer CRL for as long as possible)
Yes services are often full. This will not be fixed for 2-3 years, and will kill demand along the way. Meantime let’s build moar motorways!
Good to see cycling getting more popular, the more people who uptake cycling, the safer it becomes.
That can’t be possible, the numbers must be wrong. Every one knows our helmet laws are the number one thing that stop people from cycling, so it is just impossible that we could have such strong growth in cycling while the helmet laws remain. /facetious
Maybe the helmet law would discourage people from cycling if anyone cared about it, but plenty of people still happily ride around helmetless. And why not? I happily break the law against “jaywalking” all the time, and no-one seems to mind.
And pretty much every second motorist has a phone to their ear….
As they run a red light.
There’s no “jaywalking” in New Zealand, as long as you are away 25m from a crossing, it’s perfectly legal to cross.
It’s 20 metres, (http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2004/0427/latest/DLM303669.html), but I was talking about crossing *at* a crossing, while the red man is solidly lit.
Actually, if you read the penalties (http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/1999/0099/latest/DLM280158.html) it’s pretty interesting. $50 fine for not wearing a helmet on a motorbike, but $55 on a bicycle. Meanwhile, just $10 for crossing against a pedestrian light – and that’s for a conviction, not just a ticket. I’d prefer to have the streets back, but if it’s going to be illegal to walk in the streets, at least it’s not very illegal.
No-one seems to mind if you Jaywalk, because that it is actually not illegal to do so in NZ.
To be fair there was a dramatic reduction in cycling, both here and in Australia, after the mandatory helmet laws were introduced. It has taken over 20 years for cycling to start to trend upwards again.
Yes that is true, I happily break the Helmet Law while riding my BMX, and never had a problem either. So police are being a bit more sensible about it at the moment too.
Before and after Bryce. The drop in cycling started before helmet laws were introduced. Whatever factors caused cycling to plummet started before helmets were compulsory. Consider what was happening to car ownership and vehicle-km’s at the time, cycling dropped off because people started to drive instead.
Nick, disregarding the helmet law issue, the numbers are not necessarily as rosy as they seem.
Along the lines of Stu’s excellent climate-based speculation recently, consider that July 2012 experienced an extra week of fair days than July 2011 (despite 2-3 days of relatively heavy rain that bumped up the average monthly rainfall). E.g. at the Mt Albert Grammar weather station, there were 7 more days with zero rainfall this year. And the two wet outliers in 2012 were on a Monday and a Wednesday, whereas the two rainiest days in 2011 were both on Saturdays. Maybe that is why cycle movements were depressed slightly last year? [1]
Also, a year is a long time in Auckland, and regional population growth in the last few years has been estimated at about 1.5% per annum[2], so we should expect the absolute number of observed movements to at least grow proportionally.
Optimistically, all this leaves us with single-digit growth in this particular comparison.
Given AT publishes little in the way of basic statistical qualification and analysis, such as reliability for the mechanical counters or a per-site breakdown of the raw counts, it’s already hard to have confidence in these numbers as they are given. Especially so for the small margins of observed cycle movement growth.
[1] http://bit.ly/Nsd6OV based on data from http://maps.auckland.govt.nz/hydrotel4/cgi-bin/HydWebserver.cgi/sites/overview?site=4351&district=6&catchment=28 — the pattern is similar at other stations near the counters, and also if filtered by daylight hours.
[2] http://monitorauckland.arc.govt.nz/monitorauckland/index.cfm?4CD0866B-1279-D5EC-ED10-FC26631591A4
So if ridership were to do this again, add another 40% over the next six years that would mean some 110million trips in 2018. Ok we’re coming off a low base so let’s be conservative and say 100 million by 2020. Could our system carry this volume? So isn’t it likely that this demand will probably not be met by current plans and instead we’ll get a levelling off as can be seen on the rail numbers post RWC.
The rail network, for example, has two current constraints, rolling stock and the Britomart deadend. The first is being addressed, and the CRL is the answer to the second. There is no credible alternative to not building this with some urgency. Unless of course we wish to have both a less effective and efficient PT system in Auckland. A city clogged with buses and cars and operating at a lower level of economic efficiency.
I think it is perfectly possible to see 100+ million Patrick. Yes our system could carry that volume, it could carry ten times that volume if that volume was spread across 18 hours a day rather than 4 or so.
The rolling stock and Britomart dead end are only constraints for the peak hours, and we might be close to maxing out the demand for peak rail trips to Britomart. I don’t want to belittle the value of relieving those two constraints and building more central stations, but extending the off peak and weekend frequencies and increasing the span of service would allow for a huge amount more trips with exactly the same network and rolling stock.
.
Nick I knew someone would say that; but outside of trying to force someone on Monday morning heading to work to come back and take the journey on Sunday afternoon that is hardly an answer…. As of course you know… a better more frequent more used service at all times will, as they say, ‘rise all boats’.
People travel for a lot more reasons than just getting to work Patrick, the vast majority actually, so why not capture some of those trips rather than just peak hour CBD commuters?
Because the growth we’re seeing is largely in those peak hours, given that there’s been precious little done to make off-peak services attractive. If that growth continues, it will continue in those same hours. Capturing off-peak travel will change the growth pattern, making the total ridership probably a lot more than 100m. But we cannot predict what will happen based on some hypothetical currently-nonexistent off-peak services boost, because it’s nonexistent. All we can do is look at what’s happening with current services, which are heavily biased towards the peak travel times, and extrapolate further.
Thats my point, a largely untapped market of potential patronage. Sooner or later we are going to saturate the demand for peak time rail travel to Britomart, there are only so many people for whom that will work.
This is the second time recently that we’ve managed to conjure an argument out of a situation where we actually agree Nick…. bloody internet.
There certainly is growth potential in the off-peak if you look across the ditch. Melbourne now has some quite amazing night-time loadings – six-car trains every 20 minutes on all lines. I took an 8:30pm service last Thursday and nearly all seats were taken, so perhaps 400 passengers on the train or 1200 per hour, which is equivalent to the capacity of a lane of traffic on an arterial road. Only 15 years ago Melbourne operated its night-time trains in one-car mode (a 3-car train with only the front car available to passengers). I believe one of the differences is more migrants from places where they were used to PT. They have chosen to live in places with good PT access that don’t force car dependency. These are the locations that are now showing the best capital gain.
Malcolm it is much more likely to be the result of policy than culture. Over the last decade or more things have been deliberately changed. Car access and parking has been increasingly restricted in central Melb. Higher density housing with fewer carparks have been encouraged on transport lines within existing boundaries. More off peak services have been added…
With effort and intelligence we can get the cities we want. We just have to start making the changes across the spatial, design, and movement regulations, incentives, and investments that lead in the right directions.
We don’t need different people just different opportunities for all people.
Don’t disagree Patrick,
To give AC/AT its dues, it is pushing ahead with the NoRs and planning for the CRL, even if the funding to actually build anything isn’t there yet.
But this momentum for the CRL could stop quickly if the agreement to proceed to actually build it and the funding model isn’t put in place sooner than later.
Which if that happens will not bode well.
The EMUs will help the upward curve, but EMUs on their own can only go so far towards delivering/handling the next 6 years worth of growth.
On a side note, those population growth figures are getting pretty stale now at over 6 years since the last census, and there won’t be one til next year.
So by the time those numbers are released (when I think everyone will get a big shock with how much Auckland has grown over those 7 years) then we are looking at 15 months from now.
And no doubt by the time those figures are out the growth will have moved on even more.
Which means we will have had some 8+ years between the 1996 figures and when the 2013 ones.are released.
The EMU’s, once in service and running smoothly (crosses fingers) with a fully-functional HOP (crosses fingers again), will be a massive PR boost for the CRL.
Greg AT and AC are doing what they can, my issue is not with them but with the crazy over-centralised transport funding system that enables an ideologically driven government to force a a small town provincial model on our only city of scale.
Patrick you must be using an architectural calculator. My engineering calculator says that 40% on top pf 71 million is about 100 million. Unless I’m missing something?
I think there is no debate about where I sit on the math competency scale of contributors to this site. Ahem, 100 million it is [come back Matt].
These are great numbers but if only a few hardcore PT fans know them, there’s a limit to how much they can impact the wider discussion.
I’ve been thinking that some of the arguments and data shown here need to be packaged and advertised more broadly to the general population. That would help to build public awareness and support for the CRL, changes in the transport budget, etc. I’m not sure if the Campaign for Better Transport is working on that? Might be worth “crowd-sourcing” ideas for posters/banner ads/buttons etc. (digital and physical) which could be distributed. Maybe work with design instructors/lecturers to develop projects they could use for their undergrad/diploma classes?
I really think there needs to be some ground-swell of opinion to counter the govt’s arguments, since Brownlee doesn’t seem amenable to intellectual debate, and an ad/PR campaign could help achieve that. What do you guys think? The good attendance at the film screening showed me that there’s a community with passion and skills that is waiting to be tapped into.
Totally agree Harminder. At the very least a purpose-built website foccused initially on the CRL, would be good. I dont thnk a CRL page on this site goes far enough in informing and engaging the wider public. More coordination is needed between the activities of Generation Zero, activists on this blog, CBT and other community groups. If anything, a supergroup of like minded better transport people, made up of reps from the aforementioned groups needs to be formed to take on the supercity hierachy, other wise AC and its CCOs will continue their divide and conquer methods to avoid proper public consultation and input on service, projects and policies in the AKL region.
The strong PT numbers have featured in dozens of Herald articles over the last couple years, and in many other news outlets.
That’s true, but they don’t seem to have convinced a sizeable section of the population, and many individuals in positions of authority. Thus, my call for a more determined, diverse and structured approach to info dissemination. This issue may have been discussed to death before, so I may be barking up the wrong tree.
Yes I think you’re onto something there harminder. Many people just don’t seem to understand how popular public transport is becoming. Maybe Kent Lundberg needs to make some more badges, such as “PT4ME”
Noted. In the queue behind “Unfuck Auckland”
I believe the text the ever tactful Patrick suggested was “Unphuck Auckland”, presumably so he can make his kids wear them
The cycling figures are based on monitoring at a few selected sites. Do we know if the figures are just those for the sites, or whether they use those as a sample and extrapolate for the whole city? I’d assume they’d extrapolate, but the figures are all listed to a single digit of accuracy which seems to be a funny thing to do if they’re an estimate.
Does anyone measure or estimate the number of vehicle journeys across Auckland, for comparison? I’ve seen SH figures, but nothing that captures all the local trips.
Obi, the cycling numbers are for 9 specific sites, predominantly on off-road paths. They are not useful to “count Auckland’s cyclists”, as they are not extrapolated.
What they ARE useful for is to show us that we have a TREND of increasing cycle ridership. They also give us seasonal and other variation data we didn’t have before when all we did was a one-off count.
Thanks Max. So the real number of cycle trips could be 100 times the figure listed, and therefore really significant? I’d imagine that most cycle trips would be short distance, local, and undertaken by children traveling to school. They wouldn’t be counted by measuring the traffic on some selected medium-distance commuter cycle paths.
What I also find interesting is the small percentage of cycle trips are in the morning peak. It sort of reflects just how multi-purpose a bicycle is.
From the NZ Travel Survey data, there are an estimated 40,000 bike trips a day in a the Auckland urban area, or 1.2 million a month. So I guess the counted sites pick up only about 5% of the cycle travel done here.
Also from the Travel Survey, cycle commuter trips to work & education are about 25% of all trips (presumably making up a fair portion of the morning peak), so the Auckland morning peak figures seem a bit on the light side; maybe that reflects the greater recreational emphasis in Akld?
Glen, I would suggest that reflect’s the location of the counter sites. Many of them are on off-road paths (like Twin Streams) that DO form part of many people’s commute routes, but would see recreational riders over-represented compared to the whole network.
Hey, any good analysts out there who can answer these two questions;
A. If we hadn’t seen the investment of the last 10yrs in rail how many FEWER people would beon the trains today and how many MORE car trips would that mean? So how much more crowded would our motorways be?
B. Supplementary; How much less fuel tax has been collectedted as a result and how much more in PT subsidies has been paid?
So is part of our current RONs funding gap accounted for by a swing to PT?
Therefore, if you want to stymie the RONs get out of your car and onto PT (or your bike).
Can anyone crunch those numbers, do they support my hypothesis?
Mr Plod – the actual result of reduced fuel tax & increased motorway projects at the moment is that everything ELSE is getting squeezed, not the RONS (well, the facades are starting to crack, but for the last 3 years, it was everyone else who was suffering)…
I’m curious about the trend of Northern Express busway–it’s trend is asymptoting to a flat line.
From the graph I would draw the conclusion that either “everyone who wants to use the service is using it” or “the service is full”?
Anyone who uses this busway like to comment?
The anecdotal evidence strongly suggests “The service is full” is the answer. Plenty of reports of buses being completely packed by Constellation Drive. There’s also the problem of zero tie-in with local feeder buses, so once the park-and-ride facilities fill up people just give up and drive all the way because that’s easier than trying to find a legit parking space within walking distance of the bus stations (which are often surrounded by a sea of tarmac, just to make them that much less pedestrian-accessible) before walking to the bus, then walking all the way back at the end of the day.
The complaints about the p’n'r, in particular, point towards there being a lot more demand than is being satisfied but it’s now becoming difficult to service that demand without the necessary re-jig of local feeder routes. Either that or the massive capital costs of providing all-day parking spaces for more cars. I know which of the two I would prefer, but it’s not the easiest of things to do well.
I agree that the NEX is probably peaking out on what it can capture from walk up, park n ride, drop off and the odd woeful feeder. The new park n ride extension of 500 cars should add maybe 600 return peak trips a day (assuming they are all additional). That could translate into perhaps 20,000 boardings a month.
Might be revealing to see the figures for north shore direct services that utilise the busway, the ones that have unique suburban catchments. Presumably those are experiencing growth?
On that topic, I’ve heard about some research into where park n riders are coming from. Let’s just say the park n ride demand only exists because the suburban feeders are so poor, from what I’m told almost none comes from outside the bus network.
Hold on a second – 3.9% is not flatlining. It’s more than twice the rate of population growth and much faster than traffic growth. Yes it’s definitely slowing down from what it’s achieved in the past (for the reasons people have noted) but it’s definitely still growing.
PT improvements tend to follow a hyperbolic ramp-up curve, so some slow down is expected. Besides, looks like services using the QTN are now contributing the majority of the growth.
To Nick R.
You’re are not seriously suggesting people be permitted to ride bicycles without helmets on? Or are you?
Ok sure there are candidates for Darwin Awards who do not wear helmets, I guess that’s their choice to both flout the law and not take sensible steps to minimise appalling outcomes from essentially risky behaviour. Just because some people chose to flout a law doesn’t mean we should revoke the law, as society does gain benefits from those who obey the law. Motorway driving (am I allowed to admit to that on this blog) has got safer and easier since the cellphone law came in.
Riding without a helmet seems to work fairly well for 9/10ths of the developed world…
Remember there’s a difference between the benefits of wearing a helmet and the benefits of helmet-wearing legislation. Putting a hat and sunscreen on is a pretty good way to prevent dying from melanoma but I don’t see anyone calling for it to be made mandatory when out in the sun….
“Essentially risky behaviour”? In NZ on average you have to cycle for more than 25,000hrs before suffering a serious cycle crash (straight from the travel/crash stats); I can think of plenty more risky activities than that.
Lets assume any developed country would pick up the healthcare costs of a serious crash (excluding the US). In NZ, the taxpayer is also picking up the bill for that person’s income and disability support for the rest of their lives via ACC (yes, technically not taxes but close enough).
So, no, it’s not just a personal choice that affects nobody but the cyclist. Wear a helmet.
> Please tell me how dangerous you think it is for someone riding along the NW cycle way without a helmet.
If I swap “NW cycle way” for “Khyber Pass Road” does it change anything? I thought so.
Here is a partial list of risky situations where I think it should be compulsory to wear a helmet: When in a moving motor vehicle vehicle; when climbing a ladder; when climbing stairs; during the consumption of alcohol; after the consumption of alcohol; when sleeping in a top bunk; when sailing a boat; when playing rugby, soccer, or netball; all children up until the age of 5, all the time; if a person needs a walking stick or stroller; when skateboarding; when rollerblading; when riding a horse; when reaching for a heavy object on a high shelf; when in an attic or other room with a low ceiling; when climbing a tree; when cutting down a tree; when engaging in any DIY activity; when riding in a bus or train; when seated or moving around in an aircraft; when in the vicinity of any thrown or kicked ball, or thrown frisbee; any time a person feels a bit faint; when walking under any tree; when engaged in parkour; when operating a segway, unicycle, or pogo stick; when standing on any chair; and when leaning out any window or over any balustrade.
Think of the children!
Having previously worked in injury data surveillance only a couple of your list present a significant risk of injury, those are skateboarding, rollerblading, riding a horse, cutting down a tree and climbing a ladder and engaging in DIY (depending upon the specific DIY activity)
It’s not just about what could possibly happen, it’s about the risk of it happening. You have to consider the relative risk. It’s high for those active wheeled modes and the horse riding, and the ladders. It’s not high for the rest. Theoretically possible, but not a significant risk.
Please show me some studies about the relative risk or population health burden of frisbeeing etc, I would love to see your justification of why they are an area of concern. If you want to see the data on cycling head injury I can provide some.
NB: We never collected data on unicycling, parkour or walking under trees, so I’ll have to reserve judgement on them. I figure parkour probably has a very high risk of injury per hour engaged in the activity, unicycling I’m not sure because it tends to be done off street with no risk of collision with other vehicles. Walking under trees, well the risk of injury walking under a tree would be incredibly small, I’m sure*
(*except a coconut tree, ever noticed the signs on a resort warning you not to sit under them? That’s because the risk from falling coconuts is actually pretty hight).
Obi: you missed out ‘in a box’, ‘with a fox’, ‘in the rain’ and ‘on a train’ among others.
Seriously Rob, that principle means no-one should ever do anything ever but the safest possible thing, and obviously means no-one should ever drive, ever. Cyclists would also be a lot safer if we fitted spikes in the middle of every car steering wheel, too – how about doing that before blaming the victims for being in the way?
“you missed out ‘in a box’, ‘with a fox’, ‘in the rain’ and ‘on a train’ among others”
No, I had “on a train” on the list. However I’m obviously not thoroughly versed in head safety and I ignored the following hazards:
When leaning back in a chair; when standing on any crate or box whether it is constructed of wood, plastic, or metal; when attempting a handstand; when break dancing provided the dance includes spinning on a person’s head; within 10m of any person waving a stick, bat, tool, or bottle; when walking on any tiled or other slippery surface in the rain; when in the shower unless a non-slip bath mat is in use; when running or jogging; when riding a push scooter; any time that meteorites are predicted; when rock climbing, abseiling, or loitering in the vicinity of any cliff face; when walking or standing under any open window; when painting or cleaning any roof in the vicinity of David Shearer while on a sickness benefit; when using the slides or seesaws at any childrens’ playground or in any back yard; when skiing or snowboarding; when bungy jumping, jet boating riding, rafting, or participating in any other adventure tourism; and whenever a pedestrian is within 20m of any moving vehicle or bicycle.
I’m distressed about Nick’s slack attitude towards head safety which seems to be based on evidence rather than the higher standards of the precautionary principle. I injured a friend once while throwing a stick for a dog, which bounced off a tree and nutted him. The stick, that is, not the dog. And I was almost killed in the Netherlands when a workman threw a door out of a third floor window on to the street below where I was standing and contemplating the huge pile of rubbish in the middle of the footpath. In both situations, safety would have been improved by wearing a suitable helmet.
The ACC argument is about the only argument that carries ANY water in the helmet debate, I find. However, as others point out below, the current rules unfairly single out cycling, with the add-on result of actually creating – society-wide – health downsides. Which many studies argue clearly outweigh the health benefits.
So: Unfairly specific, and counter-productive. Sounds like a law worth scrapping to me.
Why does the fact that you pay ACC levies mean you get to tell someone else – who ALSO pays ACC levies – what to do? I think it’s pretty cold-hearted for you to resent paying a bit of money to someone who is going to suffer seriously for the rest of their life. Unless you want to trade places, you are by definition still getting the better end of the bargain.
Agree 100%.
No ME, please, no straw-man attacks.
The state – quite obviously – has the power to tell private individuals to do or cease to do certain things. When the state (i.e. the population), via a society-wide insurance scheme, has to pick up the health results of people’s choices, that also gives them a moral right to regulate some behaviours that are plainly risky. I see neither a moral nor a logical issue with that.
I argue that requiring cyclists to wear helmets is unfair singling out (all similar risks should be treated, or none), and also, is counterproductive for society’s health costs (and overall health) even if it may potentially be positive when looked at for ACC costs alone (which do not have to pay out for heart failures due to obesity for people who never walk or cycle anywhere).
If your argument stood, you should have a right to not wear your seatbelt – not wearing it only hurts you, in theory. But in practice, people flouting the rule hurt us all, via hiher medical costs, so I consider it’s perfectly acceptable to mandate seatbelts, but cycle helmets are much less clearcut.
@Rob. ACC and claim costs? In that case you would instantly ban alcohol!
What, you mean like making it illegal to drive while drunk? We did that, and spend millions enforcing it!
People in cars die of head injuries as well but I don’t see anyone pushing for mandatory helmet wearing in cars (except motor racing).
Please tell me how dangerous you think it is for someone riding along the NW cycle way without a helmet.
Are you not aware of the intense and huge list of safety features and design requirements that must be built into vehicles to be sold legally? And ever heard of the seatbelt law, the drink driving law, the one about indicating for three seconds? What about getting a warrant of fitness each six months, that is basically just to make sure you don’t crash. We have a massive list of laws to prevent injury when in comes to cars, and massive constraints on your freedom to use them as you wish! FFS!
Yes we do Nick and yet, people still get injured and die almost every day. I was of course referring just to head injuries which is how the discussion started.
Cycling is “essentially risky behaviour”?
…unless of course you are into downhill MTB’ing
Mr Plod,
People using ladders or simply slipping over at home are way more at risk of serious injuries than most cyclists and we don’t have a campaign to force them to use helmets do we?
Its a perception thing and I think that cycle helmet laws have had a major side effect of reinforcing many parents beliefs that cycling is now too dangerous for them or their kids (hence why you have to wear a helmet). So they don’t let their kids bike to school or anywhere else for that matter. Which is not what the law intended to occur.
Mind you seat belts do save lives and most people don’t (now) believe that the roads are much less safe than they were 40 years ago (on average).
But people seem to have a moral repugnance of putting things on their heads (unless its something they deem ok e.g. scarves, sunhats, head coverings, sun glasses hair care products, headphones).
I guess it comes down to the “how much of dick you feel wearing it factor” – go figure.
Have you not seen all the ACC campaigns about safe ladder use, or slipping and falling over? ACC spends millions trying to restrict peoples behaviour to prevent accidents and reduce their severity. There are also a huge list of laws regarding workplaces and publicly accessible areas that constrain the way we can design, build and use private property, specifically for preventing injuries from falls in the home or ladders and the like.
All the arguments against helmets are the same arguments against seatbelts in the 70s. We got over that and society is far better off as a result, I wish we could just get over the helmet thing and move on too, especially as the main argument against them is demonstrably misguided. These figures show that helmets aren’t stopping our cycling rates from growing at double digit rates, so why campaign against them?
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/Presence-of-Mind-Buckle-Up-And-Behave.html
Given that seatbelts make people drive more dangerously, keeping the risk same for themselves and increasing it for everyone else, I think banning seatbelts (for drivers) is going to reduce accidents more than requiring them. But the question is one of fairness: bicycling would be very safe if it weren’t for all the cars racing around endangering everyone else. Why then should bicyclists have to shoulder the burden? Why not attack the cause of the problem, the ones with moral responsibility, the road hogs?
The value of seatbelts comes from reducing the severity of injuries in crashes that do occur. They don’t do one iota for reducing the number of crashes, that’s not the point. Perhaps there is a small increase in crashes attributable to them, but that would get lost in the rounding when looking at the reduction in deaths or severe injury outcomes they afford.
They only reduce deaths or serious injury for the people who wear them, though. They don’t make things safer one iota for anyone else, and often make it worse. And my sympathies lie with people who don’t endanger other people’s lives by propelling several tons of metal at insane speed through city streets.
In NZ, Steve, seatbelt wearing rates are well over 90%, and the save many lives every year. Whatever notional increase in driving behaviour-related danger there might be it is certainly vastly outweighed by the absolutely certain reduction in serious injuries and deaths that result from seatbelts being worn.
One does not have to read terribly many accounts of fatal vehicle crashes to encounter a person thrown from a rolling vehicle and killed while others in the vehicle were held in place by their seatbelts and survived.
Seatbelts don’t make it safer it all, they don’t stop crashes. All the do is reduce the severity of the injuries you experience when you do crash.
As for the idea it causes people to drive more recklessly, well I wouldn’t know either way myself. But the research shows that seatbelts have an overwhelmingly positive impact on traffic injury overall.
Nick, there’s definitely evidence, as presented in Steve’s link, that safety features in cars such as ABS make people drive more dangerously because they mistakenly believe their risks are lower.
That said, the increase in dangerous behaviour is absolutely outweighed by the reduction in fatalities and injuries that comes about from the safer cars. The rate of road deaths has decreased steadily despite (I would say largely because) cars being much, much safer than they were previously. Crumple zones, ABS, advanced seatbelt designs, air bags… It all adds up to a lot of incentive to drive more dangerously, but the statistics don’t suggest anything other than safer cars making it much, much less likely that you will be seriously injured or killed in a crash.
I’m not saying seatbelts don’t save lives. But they save the lives of people who spend a lot of their time risking the lives of other people, and those people would not do so if they had a bit more ‘skin in the game’ – no seatbelt, or better yet a giant spike on their steering wheel. It might even encourage some of them to stop driving and make us all safer.
Mr Plod, no I was being very sarcastic. In the Auckland context helmets are very important for cycling. Plainly helmet laws don’t stop people from cycling, otherwise we wouldn’t be experiencing big growth in cycling would we, so I see the argument that we need to remove helmet laws to encourage more people to cycle as completely spurious. Cycling is growing fast regardless, so there is no need to increase the number of debilitating head injuries that we have to put through our healthcare and rehabilitation systems.
Yet you forget, or ignore, that cycling in NZ and Australia took a massive downturn after the laws were introduced. Also there is a big difference between ACC trying to educate people about ladder use and making it illegal to use a ladder without a harness and helmet. Maybe the Helmet Law should have been a recommendation? Ie, if you believe you should wear a helmet – riding down Khyber Pass (I would), MTB’ing (absolutely), riding to the local shops (I would prefer not to but I’m not going to hand over $50 tax to the govt) then it can come down to the person riding to make the risk assessment.
As was pointed out to you already, the decrease began before the helmet laws came into force. You have no proof of a causal relationship, you have only supposition based on your own biases about the subject.
No that’s not correct. Helmet laws were introduced while cycling rates were already sliding massively in NZ and Australia, not before. So yes cycling dropped after helmet laws came it, but it also dropped when we had no helmet laws. I can’t discount the possibility that helmet laws contributed to the decline, but the definitely didn’t cause it.
Interesting. Maybe that means the falling cycle rates caused the helmet law?
We’re not going to see eye to eye on this or even meet in the middle so I’m out of this discussion. I value my personal freedom. As I’ve mentioned there is no way I would venture into busy streets without a helmet or MTB’ing in the forest without a helmet but, when cruising down a quiet residential street to the local cafe’ or supermarket, I resent the law with every turn of the pedal. I still think education, as we do with many other activities, would have been a better option.
Personally my gut feeling is that helmet laws were a reaction to the combination of falling cycling rates and increasing traffic rates and speeds through the 70s and 80s increasing the relative risk of injury while cycling. Can’t back that up though, just a hunch.
Agree with you fully Bryce; my compromise is to wear a hat on local runs.
From memory (I was in my early 20′s so it may be accurate or not) there was a campaign started by an Aust mother who lost her daughter to head injury while cycling. The media then picked up and created a frenzy which led to Australia (Vic first I think) introducing the law. As has been the case for a long time, the LTNZ adopted the Australian idea and law.
So this, ahem, discussion has prompted some research. Turns out the NZ law was prompted by a NZ lady by the name of Rebecca Oaten, whose son suffered a brain injury after being hit by a car while riding his bike in 1986 (I did warn that I may have suffered some memory loss in my late teens / early 20′s).
After being told by a specialist that her son would not have had a head injury (I don’t know how a doctor would know this for certain – I digress), she started a campaign of going to schools (up to 4 a day from what I have read) and lecturing on how all cyclists should wear helmets. This started in the late 80′s. I was out of school by then but I have read that the message was not just that cyclists should wear helmets but that cycling was dangerous. Now, once this got to parents etc, what do you think happened to cycling rates? Then, of course, a few years later the law was introduced.
(Another point to note is that, in the same time period, the number of vehicles on NZ roads was growing substantially due to the proliferation of used Japanese imports.)
Also, it got me thinking about the wording of the law. Turns out that the law only applies while you are cycling “on the road”.
http://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/factsheets/01/cycles-rules-equipment.html
So, at the end of the day, according to NZTA, cycling is only really dangerous while you are riding on the road. The reason for this? Motor vehicles of course and the negligence of NZ transport authorities to create an environment that is safe for cyclists (And pedestrians for that matter. Check out the pedestrian accident stats.).
Of course this leads us back to the increase in cycling rates in Auckland. Is it because people now view cycling as safer, increased fuel prices, good weather, bad stats or just the fact that in the past few years there has been a, slow, program of providing ‘off road’ cycle infrastructure?
The best news of course is that if you are riding on a purpose built cycleway or shared path, you do not, by law (as far as I can determine), need to wear your helmet. Bring on more cycleways I say.
Thanks Nick for providing the inspiration to do the research and to Patrick for giving me the method – beer.
I agree “make it go”. But this stuff takes a lot of time and effort. Are you offering up your services or just moaning that someone else should be doing it better?
The answer has arrived: invisible helmets
http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/europe/7499437/Invisible-bike-helmet-goes-on-sale
Nice, I thought of that a while ago.
But it still requires you to buy and carry yet another accessory, and is used to fight a problem which 90% of all countries worldwide do not consider worth mandating measures against. Nor does it explain why you should wear the invisble helmet while cycling, but not while using various other sports or transport methods. Next, we will see them sell these things for kids on the playground.
“Nice, I thought of that a while ago.”
Just to clarify, I like the project. And it could be nicer than helmets if it works well and is unobstrusive. But it isn’t an answer to the downsides of mandatory laws unless it is SO easy and cheap to use that it becomes as natural as making sure your tires are inflated.
What a boring argument… Helmets are extremely useful at preventing you from having to have tiresome and expensive conversations with men in uniforms who have much more important things to do. Other than they ruin your hair…. that’s about it.
Personally I find they keep my hair tidy! I’m not sure what others look like after blasting through the air at 20km/h for ten or fifteen minutes, but I get a sort of Bride of Frankenstien meets disco diva thing going on.
Unfortunately I don’t have that to worry about
Nick, in terms of making helmet law’s optional. Let’s say Auckland had a cycle mode share of 5-10% with vast swathes of cycle infrastructure. In your opinion, at that time would an optional helmet law make sense? I understand that our roads are dangerous at the moment, but I was just wondering if you feel that there is ever a situation that Auckland could experience that would make a optional helmet law OK?
Yes, if we had the conditions that made the helmet law obsolete. If cycling injury rates were so low that they rendered helmet use insignificant from a population health perspective then I’d have no problem leaving that decision up to the rider. Indeed if we look to cities like Copenhagen and Amsterdam that have very high cycling levels and very low cycling injury rates, I’m not about to storm off to campaign the introduction of helmet laws there.
But there are other more significant considerations, if we look at those cities they do have high cycling, low injury and no helmet laws. But they also have a lot more, they have very high quality cycle lanes on every major road, they have very low traffic speeds by our standards, they have roads and intersections that are designed to safely accommodate cyclists and pedestrians, if not downright prioritise them at the expense of cars. They have an urban form that has low speed narrow local streets and few driveways. They have a culture of respect for all road users, they have drivers and cyclists who are skilled at sharing the road with one another, they have motorists that believe cyclists have a right to be on the road. They have laws that favour the cyclist in almost any situation, placing the onus of prevention and the legal ramifications on car drivers. That is why so many people cycle there, that is why they have low cycling injury rates, and that is why they don’t need helmet laws.
Auckland has almost none of this.
My understanding of the anti helmet-law argument goes like this:
A) Cycling in Auckland is dangerous because so few people cycle.
B) So few people cycle because they are required to wear helmets.
C) If we remove helmet laws many more people will cycle, the culture and habits of road users will then change to accommodate all the new cyclists on the road, and the incidence of injury will fall to a point where it is no longer dangerous to cycle.
I don’t agree with these points. Firstly I do understand the logic of the protective effect of lots more cyclists around changing behaviour so that people are used to sharing with cyclists. I think increasing cycling rates is a good idea for many reasons, including the ‘strength in numbers’ argument. However that’s only part of the story. As long as we have roads that prioritise high speed vehicle flow above all else, as long as we lack cycle facilities and appropriate intersection designs, as long as we keep building big sweeping multi lane roundabouts and the like, as long as we have laws that blame cyclists when someone opens a car door in front of them and as long as we have an arrogant “roads are for drivers only” culture, it will still be quite dangerous to cycle in Auckland regardless of how many people do it.
Secondly, I totally disagree with the idea that removing helmet laws would create a significant increase in cycling levels. This idea supposes one of two things, either that helmets are the one and only thing that are stopping lots of people from cycling, or that they are such a powerful constraint that people would be happy to overlook all the other issues if only they could ride without one. I don’t believe this is the case. I think the main thing that stops significant numbers of people from cycling are the other factors I’ve outlined above, the lack of infrastructure, the cycle-unfriendly urban design, the anti cyclist legal basis, the poor roadsharing skills and the vitriolic hatred most motorist show towards anyone else not in a car (and a lot within cars too). A large part of why people don’t cycle probably has to do with the fact that car ownership is very high, operating costs low and that we have plenty of traffic lanes and heaps of parking. It’s actually very easy to own a car, drive and park in Auckland. Relative to cycling, driving is very easy. I think that is the main reason we don’t have high cycling numbers, and I’m willing to attribute the recent growth in cycling to fuel costs and tightening belts as much as the attractiveness of the mode itself.
Removing the requirement to wear a helmet isn’t going to make the average joe suddenly disregard the reality of cycling in Auckland and leap on a bike. Really, where is this large proportion of the population who are ready and willing to cycle if only they could do it without a helmet on? I don’t think they exist in significant numbers. Just about anyone who is willing to cycle in the existing Auckland context probably already does.
So yes, I could see a future when we have good infrastructure, culture and laws that support cycling. I can see a future when lots of people cycle and the act of cycling is much safer. In that future we can reasonably consider making helmet use optional… but I don’t think we’ll get to that future by changing the law first. Removing helmet laws in Auckland now would see no significant change in the growth of cycling, but it would result in much worse injury outcomes. If we want to grow cycling we need to look at the other factors first, because they are the main reasons stopping people from cycling.
Did you see my reply further up Nick. I have the solution! More off road cycleways and shared paths. No helmets required by law and safer. This would remove 2 potential reasons not to cycle at the same time.
Once we get enough people cycling motorists will be much more aware of them and, as you have pointed out, hopefully over time motorists will evolve into being able to safely share the road with other users. This includes pedestrians.
As someone who has landed on their head, and cycled in both Amsterdam and Auckland, I agree wholeheartedly with Nick’s assessment.
Bryce, I agree in part. I think the strategy for growing cycling in Auckland would be to start with off road cycleways that allow people to make meaningful trips (for commuting, utility and recreation) with little interaction with general traffic. That’s the way to get average joe on board and build the profile of cycling, at least initially. Once we have a good network of cycleways expand it out to good cycle lanes on more arterials, in combination with general traffic calming on all lesser streets. That’s the way to take a growing niche/recreational mode and make it practical for all sorts of trips. IMHO focussing on off road cycleways then on road cycle lanes then general cycling without special lanes would be a pragmatic way to grow cycling numbers and cycling friendly road culture in NZ.
Still not sure about removing helmet requirements. until possibly the end of that process. Are we to say helmets are optional on cycleways but compulsory on road? That would mean just about everyone would still need a helmet with them because part of their ride is bound to use some city streets. There is of course still risks from falling from the bike or crashing into stationary objects. From what I recall with my work in the state of Victoria about half the number of cycle crashes resulting in hospitalisation involved the cyclist only (well, and a kurb or tree or parked car or pole or whatever). The half involving other vehicles tended to have much greater severity of injury as you’d expect, but that’s not to say you can’t have a nasty bike crash all on your own. I’d still like someone to convince me that helmet laws are the sole thing holding willing cyclists back, or conversely that cycleways, cycle lanes and changes in road user behaviour wouldn’t result in massive growth even with helmet laws.
Personally I’d love to be able to ride my bike carefree on any kind of street in any direction with confidence for my own safety and no need for special equipment or super defensive riding. But in the mean time I’m going to keep wearing my helmet and high vis vest and assume all other road users don’t know or care that I’m there.
Nick, I’m not disagreeing but this is how silly it has got though:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/taranaki-daily-news/news/6807707/Fine-for-some-helmets-the-option-for-others
Probably riding at 15 km/h along a separated walkway. Note: Skateboarders etc are exempt. There is risk in everything we do (and I work in H&S as a job) but where do you stop? Why do we still allow people to play rugby when players die, suffer head injuries and are paralysed (amongst a huge number of other injuries) on a reasonably regular basis?
There are occasions that come to mind when I have actually opted to drive locally (Te Atatu Pen) just because working out where to put my helmet at the other end was more time consuming than hoping into my car.
As for cycle injuries on roads, not involving cars, it would be an interesting statistic to see whether they were cruising or on a training ride. The speeds, and therefore risks, are quite different I would imagine.
How to start improving road safety? Here’s as good an idea as any I have seen. Anyone at NZTA interested?
http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/search/label/sustainable%20safety
And I found a different NZTA take on the law:
http://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/roadcode/cyclist-code/about-equipment/cycle-helmets.html
So it appears that you do actually by law have to wear a helmet every time you ride your bike, even in your back yard or riding along the beach on your cruiser (scary cycle accident stats on the beach I presume).
Last post. It’s pointless. I think I’m going to sell my road bike and just keep my MTB.
I said the last post was going to be the last but I just found this while looking for something else and for the sake of accuracy:
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2004/0427/latest/DLM303675.html
“11.8 Safety helmets for cyclists
• (1) A person must not ride, or be carried on, a bicycle on a road unless the person is wearing a safety helmet of an approved standard that is securely fastened.”
According to the law you can indeed ride on a cycleway (but not on the road sections) without a helmet if you so choose to take the risk (but not in Taranaki because it seems the Police got a pathway designation changed to a road. (I wonder how they keep the cars off if it is a road?)
I’m just waiting for Patrick to ban Nick for trolling his patronage thread into a bike helmet debate.
tempting… but I’m off for a drink instead….
I just wrote a very witty (if I say so myself response) but then it got deleted and I remembered that bike helmet discussions are boring so decided not to post it. On another note, maybe at sustainable transport/cycling functions we could have a little cordoned off area with a rope and a sign saying “Discuss helmet laws here”. This might prevent people from fixing me with a glittering eye, like the Ancient Mariner, and engaging me in a very lengthy debate on this issue in which they expect me to change an entire political parties policy on the basis of their opinion – something that I not only have no power to do, but also no motivation. I am usually helpless to escape these “little” chats without giving grave offense but if there was a fenced off area I could just wave towards it and say “I think you shoudl go in there – people actually want to talk about helmets in that section.”
I find this topic all very patronising…