Bus lanes - why did we bother?

10:31am 13 Nov 2009 48 comments

It's some weeks into the Papanui Road bus lane scheme now, and it's like driving on a Monopoly board, with all the red and green bits and the lines and graphics. I almost expected to reach Harewood Road and drive over a sign saying: do not pass go, do not collect $200! That or find I've landed on a hotel and need to pay for the privilege!

I reckon they could have saved an awful lot of money.  I heard it cost the council millions, and all they seem to have done is apply several kilometres of paint. There do not appear to be any physical changes to the road in any way.

Bearing in mind that buses, cyclists and pedestrians appear to be able to drive, ride and walk anywhere they damn well want at any time with impunity along Papanui Road, despite their colourfully painted appointed areas, why didn't the authorities just paint a car lane and have done with it?

Running the cycling gauntlet

10:49am 06 Nov 2009 86 comments

Parking up this morning, I noted behind me in my door mirror a fast-approaching cyclist weaving in and out of other parked cars so I opened my door just a crack, because he was riding too close for comfort.

This must have startled him, because the invective I received was mind-boggling.

Which again raises this issue of cyclists and motorists living together on the road.

The Road Code says:

'Hazards like parked cars, potholes, glass, litter and opening car doors may cause cyclists to veer off-line and move into your path. Because of this, give cyclists plenty of room when passing them. Ideally, allow at least 1.5 metres between you and the cyclist.'

Do you really NEED to drive and phone?

12:55pm 02 Nov 2009 35 comments

Cellphones - let's just not bother

When was the last time you thanked your lucky stars that you were able to risk your life and those of others by answering the phone while driving? Would it have changed your life if you hadn't been able to?

Exactly.

Hands - free

My answer to those who say that hands-free phones are just as dangerous as non-hands-free units, is to ask them another question: would you prefer motorists to drive with both hands on the wheel, or just one while nursing a cellphone clamped to their ear with the other?

Bridgestone closure a double blow

10:50am 27 Oct 2009 11 comments

The loss of so many jobs at the Papanui tyre plant is a tragedy.

I know a lot of the people who've worked there over the years and have visited the plant on several occasions professionally.

The one clear impression that was imparted to me over the years was a sense of pride in the job and it was acknowledged that the Papanui plant produced tyres as good as any in the world.

Also, most of the products were designed and crafted especially for New Zealand conditions, and I'm running a set of Papanui tyres on my car at the moment because of this, instead of the original items.

The  car runs better on them because they're locally focused designs. Because of special "sipes" and the construction of the tyres, they are far quieter over our unique coarse-chip surfaces than overseas-sourced items and they appear to last longer too, with no loss of grip or ride quality.

Bikers cop ACC blame

11:41am 16 Oct 2009 56 comments

On the subject of this week's ACC furore, I wonder if the Government is mixing up the difference between the victims and causes of accidents when it comes to motorcycling. A case in point was the police driver who threw a dangerous U-turn in the Buller Gorge, only to be struck by two motorcyclists.

It was the driver's fault, not the motorcyclists', though the two-wheelers spent a lot of time, and as it happens a swag of ACC money, on getting fixed up. But the fault was the car driver's, and you can bet your bottom dollar that the ACC claim was referred to as a motorcycle cost, not the other way around.

It happens in so many cases. It's true that there are many single-vehicle motorcycle incidents, just as there are car crashes of a similar nature. However, in many cases motorists are responsible for "not seeing" a motorcycle and pulling out in front of them. They, not the motorcyclists, are the cause in these situations.

I wonder if the ACC is as quick to apportion cost and blame to cyclists who are just as invisible in these situations and also hit quite often by motorists. Does the ACC call that a cycling cost? I bet you they don't.

I can see the ACC's point that motorcyclists are possibly a little more exposed in impacts, but so are pedestrians and cyclists.