Does this headline seem fair to you? He’s a former ambulance driver, and his complaint is the new cycle lanes will prevent vehicles from moving out of the way of an ambulance. The headline presents this as him being concerned about damaging his car should he accidentally drive over one. It seems like a very clickbaity way to present the article if you ask me.
Headline is prob not fair but the article is full of the same old tired arguments.
Cycle lanes cause congestion. Cool, lets get some cars off the road, that’ll help.
Cyclists get injured too. Yes, by cars. See previous point.
It’s gonna impact ambulances. OK, but apart from less cars = less “accidents” and therefore less callouts, that road has enough space down the middle for an ambulance to drive sideways?! Do they think planners don’t take emergency routes/access into account in their plans? I assure you they do.
I have to turn at a right angle to get into the driveway. Yes, you have to slow down, which improves the chances you’ll spot and therefore not hit somone. You can’t careen wildly into a driveway at speed anymore. Sorry, not sorry.
My low car might get an owie. Yes, you chose a low car. There are a million things that might impact it i.e basically every single driveway, speed hump, gutter or object on the road.
My big car doesn’t even get impacted by your speed bumps. Wow, so what is it? We have to build higher speed bumps. Okay, but mr sports car is going to be getting even more owies. I don’t know what we’re supposed to do with that information/brag?
My business will die if you remove the one park outside my door. Wow, your business is on its death bed already then?! I’m very sorry. I don’t think that one car park is doing all you think it is? Personally I only go to a business that is near a bus stop or good cycling infrastructure but I know I’m weird because I don’t own a car but really, I see this argument all the time and it makes no sense. Can’t people park around the corner and walk a few minutes?! If someone parks in a parking building you often have to walk/take a lift/take multiple stairs and STILL end up walking to the shop. Maybe slap up a bike stand and work on your marketing, product, quality, service or whatever else will make an actual difference to your businesses survival? /rant
Wasn’t there a trial somewhat recently that tested removal of carparks and found that after an initial decline in patronage, most of the trial areas returned to the the prior level with some having higher patronage after the removal?
There was one in Wellington. Basically, some businesses got more business, some of them got less. I don’t think the change either way was anything spectacular.
Can you remember which experiment this was in (I suppose it’s probably either the highly contentious Newtown or island bay ones)
Yes, I am pretty sure this is the case. It’s not hard to think that people that walk / cycle past a business will notice more things. They’ll be lured in by those elaborate window displays you spent all morning setting up. They will smell the baked goods wafting by. They’ve probably worked up an appetite from all the walking/biking as well. They’ve maybe even had time to be influenced by your signage promising bargains, discounts etc etc. Cars are just zooming by, no attention whatsoever paid to your business unless they’re A) already intending to go there or B) you have something outside so offensively eye catching and distracting that it probably should be outlawed?!
Yes, I am pretty sure this is the case. It’s not hard to think that people that walk / cycle past a business will notice more things.
But only if they are local enough to be there by bike from the start. If anyone of you thinks that people ride their bikes 30, 40, 50km to the next city to do shopping, you might be in for a surprise. Those shops that would die without a car park are those who draw their crowd from outside the cities, too. And no, public transport is no option either for people from outside the city where there only is a morning bus and an evening bus.
Just to clarify, are you suggesting that people can’t drive 30, 40, 50 kms, park in a building or around the corner and walk an extra few meters?
I don’t know about you, but if I’ve driven an hour to go to a store and can’t park my ute directly in front of it, I turn straight around and go home again.
Just to clarify, are you suggesting that people can’t drive 30, 40, 50 kms, park in a building or around the corner and walk an extra few meters?
That was never my topic.
In the next town (30km from here), it was as you described, and everyone was OK with that: Several underground parking garages and a large pedestrian zone in the city center. But this is getting more and more problematic. The new mayor decided to cripple the cities traffic infrastructure to force people into (inadequate) public transport or (imaginary) bikes. So now it is seriously difficult and time-consuming to reach those garages in the first place. Yes, there is park&ride outside of town and one could take a metro from there to near the city center, but the metro is very infrequent (30min interval) and initially took way longer than the trip by car. But instead of improving the metro connection, they crippled down the commute by car so it is now nearly as bad as the metro. And the next public transport stop is quite outside the pedestrian zone, anyway. Guess what, customers are pissed, retailers are pissed. And the bikers did not even get a worthwhile cycling infrastructure out of this.
On top of that (but that is really a personal problem) the metro station at the P&R is so badly built that I have problems getting my wife (who is handicapped) on the train in the first place. So we only use it when we need to go to places that are actually reachable with the tram. For access to the pedestrian zone, we still have to fight our way to the underground car parks in the city center, or go to places outside the crippled city.
As someone else has pointed out, cycling and walking is something that only takes people a very short distance away from home, so the catchment area for your business is very small, compared to someone else who drives. It’s also a very weather dependent activity, and you’re quite limited in what you can carry.
Something like a bakery is fairly generic, any will do, so as long as people can get to your store you’ll be OK, but a store that is quite niche will likely struggle.
This is one advantage shopping malls have, they’re typically close to public transport, and have covered parking.
Personally I think it’s a non-issue. You can see the artists impression of the cyclelane. It has a massive median down the middle, and regular gaps that I guess could be used if for some reason the median couldn’t be used by the ambulance.
You’ve kinda missed the point, I feel.
This is an article about a person who opposes something goeing to the media and having a one-sided article written about their view. While I don’t believe in including opposing views for the sake of it, in this case it’s clear the majority agree with the proposal and this one guy does not.
His experience as an ambulance driver would mean a lot more if the article touched on why the median isn’t enough, why someone can’t pull into a driveway, or had some other ambulance drivers voicing their opposition.
For all we know, he might not be an ambulance driver anymore because he was crap at it.
I’m a data driven person and this article has nothing to help me take the side of the NIMBY.
would prevent him pulling his sports car out of the way for emergency services vehicles in a timely fashion.
They fundamentally misrepresented his concerns with that headline. Regardless of how well founded his case is, the headline makes out that his biggest concern is damage to his vehicle, which is patently untrue.
Yeah, they do put the reporter’s bias against him into the title. Though, at the least, he is concerned about damage to his car from the barriers.
Chong wondered who would pay for repairs to low-riding vehicles like his damaged in encounters with the separation barriers.
I read this, and I am thinking, why is there a low barrier and not a fence?
The shared with bus stops is why, but they should only need a hole in the fence at the bus stops ± 40m to allow for pull in and out.
Also to allow pedestrians to cross perhaps?
A 1.2m break every 150m would sort this issue out.
The barriers are so low this prick thinks you’re meant to be able to drive over them. Forget 100mm, how about 1m concrete barriers… less room for ambiguity
would prevent him pulling his sports car out of the way for emergency services vehicles in a timely fashion.
I really feel you don’t grasp that making way for an ambulance is something to be encouraged.
The ambulance can stop and pick up the cyclist you hit on thier way to the hospital. It’s just more efficient.
Car brain thinks it is the bike lane that’s at fault for blocking emergency vehicles. More entitled news at 11.
him being concerned about damaging his car should he accidentally drive over one.
That seems like a him problem, not mine.
That phrase does not appear in the article. Why are you using a quote that doesn’t exist?
would prevent him pulling his sports car out of the way for emergency services vehicles in a timely fashion.
This is the crux of the article, which both you and Dave seem unable to comprehend. It seems like a reasonable concern to me.
This is the crux of the article, which both you and Dave seem unable to comprehend. It seems like a reasonable concern to me.
Because it’s clear that’s not actually an issue, on account of the massive median strip.
That phrase does not appear in the article. Why are you using a quote that doesn’t exist?
This isn’t an uncommon use of the tool - kind of a mocking TLDR I guess. In this case I can understand it’s not necessarily clear that it’s use it satirical.Edit: Turns out the quote was of the body text from this postThe whole point of this post was to query whether RNZ represented his views fairly with the headline, as I felt they did him dirty.
Somewhat disappointingly, most commenters seem to have missed that point.
deleted by creator
He quoted your text you dingus.
Did you not read the entire comment chain?
I did. And you said, and I quote:
That phrase does not appear in the article. Why are you using a quote that doesn’t exist?
Because he used the quote symbol for something that wasn’t a quote.
Quoting something I said, in a manner that completely changes what was said, and presenting it in a manner that makes it sound like it came from the article is shifty as hell.
As mentioned by DarkThoughts, he is quoting something that exsists: Your own text in this post.
him being concerned about damaging his car should he accidentally drive over one.
This does not appear in the article, which is heavily implied by the way he used it.
He’s also used the quote in a way where it completely changes what was said, which isn’t cool either
Either the separation barriers or his har is not up to code then. Each can be easily be verified.
Are the separation barriers required to be lower than a car? I would think the intent is that you don’t drive over them. The image in the article has a massive median strip for emergency services, so I doubt the cars will have to pull over the separation barrier in a hurry.
Are the separation barriers required to be lower than a car?
Depends on the kind of separation barrier. I’d expect them to be build not to inflict unreasonable damage in expectable use - a demand that should be consider normal in every situation, not just in traffic.
I wouldn’t think normal use includes driving over them, I’d think of them more like a curb.
In a lot of cities, tram tracks share space with the normal car and bike traffic. I could stay right of the rails for most of the time, but had to switch over for illegal parking cars (luckily a rare occasion there, as blocking the tram was severly frowned upon), but more frequently for changing lanes to turn left. There is nothing worse than getting stuck with your bike in a tram rail in the middle of the morning commute.
He explicitly says his car is above the legal minimum ride height.
That’s the point: His car is at 160mm, the curb has 100mm, so both are within parameters. There is nothing for him to complain about.
I hope his sports car gets fucked.
See, this is why we read past the headline.
You’re right. I went and read it just now and I still think his “sports car” should get fucked. It was a statement in and of itself about his sports car. Lol “sports car.”
Thanks for your valuable contribution to the conversation.
You. Are. Welcome.
