New Plymouth councillor complains cycle lane separation barriers will ruin his sports car
New Plymouth councillor complains cycle lane separation barriers will ruin his sports car
Murray Chong says cycle lane separation barriers would prevent him pulling his low-riding sports car out of the way for emergency services vehicles.
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?
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?!
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.
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 post
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.
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.