Submission guide for the Accessible Streets package of rule changes
There are significant co-benefits for health, climate and equitable access from active transport (biking, walking, wheelchair use, scooting, skating). The Government is seeking public feedback on its “accessible streets” package of rules designed to encourage walking, biking, and support liveable and vibrant towns and cities. However, many of the proposed changes will erode the rights of pedestrians and people with disabilities on the footpath while having minimal impact on the convenience of people in cars. It is time the government addressed providing safe space for cyclists and other “third speed” transport like e-scooters, while protecting the rights and safety of footpath users. This can be achieved by creating safe space for “third speed” transport by reducing vehicle speed limits on roads, bike friendly traffic calming infrastructure and high quality cycle path infrastructure. Deadline for submissions is 5pm Wednesday 20 May.
Please find a link here to the online submission form.
Below is a submission guide to help you answer core questions. This guide helps you answer what we think are the most important questions for climate change, health and fairness. You don’t have to answer all questions. Please use your own words to create a unique submission but use the comments below as guidance. This submission should take 10-15 min to complete.
If you need more detail, here is a resource for making a submission.
Submission guide
|
Survey monkey Question |
Proposal |
Answer |
Comment |
|
2 |
1A |
Strongly agree |
All people using wheelchairs should be able to use the footpath |
|
3 |
1B |
Strongly agree |
This will simplify the categorisation of devices that will operate on foot and cycle paths |
|
8 |
1C |
Agree |
This will allow balance bikes on footpaths |
|
9 |
1D |
Strongly agree |
People using mobility devices that assist with access for people with disabilities should be welcome on the footpath with care for pedestrians |
|
13 |
2 |
Strongly disagree |
Allowing cycles, e-bikes and motorised transport devices to use the footpath makes this space unsafe for pedestrians, especially vulnerable footpath users with disabilities. It politically avoids reducing the convenience of people when they are driving. Further, there is no evidence that cycling on the footpath reduces the risk of injury compared with cycling in traffic. There are rapid options for sharing the streets safely and equitably. Consistent and well-funded short, medium and long-term measures should be deployed to ensure that street spaces are made safe for “third speed” users. The most effective of these is to significantly reduce motor vehicle traffic speeds in places where mixed use is desirable, particularly residential areas and town centres. Tactical urbanism (temporary infrastructure) can be rolled out rapidly to achieve traffic calming and safe spaces for cycling and other “third speed” modes such as mobility scooters, e-scooters. This will ensure attractive and safe active transport without endangering footpath users, with significant benefits for population health and climate change mitigation. |
|
15 |
B |
See answer to 13. Small children are already allowed to cycle on the footpath. We consider that e-scooters should be dealt with in the law consistently with bikes and e-bikes |
|
|
16 |
No, I would not support an age limit |
The current law is not around age but wheel size, which is a proxy for speed, weigth and height on impact. Ages for use of these bicycles varies |
|
|
17 |
Agree |
||
|
18 |
No |
Answer to 13 obviates need for this |
|
|
19 |
No |
Answer to 13 obviates need for this |
|
|
21 |
2A |
Strongly agree |
Pedestrians should be at the top of the transport hierarchy, especially on the footpath |
|
22 |
Strongly agree |
||
|
23 |
2B |
Disagree |
Limit on footpaths should be approx. 5 km/hr – ie walking pace |
|
24 |
Disagree |
Answer to 23 makes this unnecessary |
|
|
25 |
A consistent level of service for footpaths set at national level, including width, quality and maintenance requirements that meet the needs of people with disabilities |
||
|
26 |
2C |
About right |
|
|
30 |
3 |
Agree |
Cycle paths and shared paths should not be combined into a single category, since they are very different kinds of infrastructure, with different users. They have quite different needs so it is difficult to comment when they are combined together. However, the proposals would work reasonably well for shared paths |
|
31 |
Strongly agree |
||
|
32 |
Strongly disagree |
Cycle paths and shared paths should not be combined into the same category, since they are very different kinds of infrastructure. The speed limit of 50 km/hr is too high for shared paths. There is the possibility for an e-bike to legally travel at 50km/hr on a shared path in this scenario, putting pedestrians, especially vulnerable pedestrians at risk. In contrast on a cycle path a limit of 50 km/hr is acceptable. |
|
|
35 |
4 |
Strongly agree |
This would enable all “third speed” users, including e-scooters to use cycling infrastructure, with two useful effects: footpaths will be protected for lowest speed users, and cycling infrastructure will gain in use, increasing the political will for further investment. There will need to be some work to ensure that people don’t leave unattended dockless hire scooters and bikes in cycle lanes |
|
36 |
Strongly disagree |
The use of cycling infrastructure should be consistent across jurisdictions |
|
|
37 |
5 |
Agree/strongly agree |
Front and rear lights are effective at night and should be mandated |
|
40 |
6 and 6A |
Strongly agree |
All of these rule changes will make it safer for cyclists and “third speed” users on the road |
|
41 |
Strongly agree |
||
|
42 |
6C |
Strongly agree |
|
|
45 |
6D |
Strongly agree |
This will make our roads more friendly for pedestrians. |
|
48 |
7 |
Strongly agree |
A mandated minimum safe passing limit was recommended by the National Cycling Safety Panel. Further comment: the speed at which it applies would be better as 1.5 m at all speed limits >50 km/hr and 1 m when speeds <50 km/hr. |
|
49 |
8 |
Agree |
However, we support a more consistent national restriction covering berms, with exceptions to the rule. |
Ka Pai! Pat yourself on the back for submitting on an important issue.