Posts by Bart Janssen
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Nelson Street: Not too…, in reply to BenWilson,
the lanes could get faster toward the outside
The problem is going to be the desire to stop and look at the views.
-
Hard News: Nelson Street: Not too…, in reply to Russell Brown,
my front wheel caught a wet rail
We were ambling around the new waterfront pathway and found ourselves all the way around the marina near the yacht club - it turns out the marina wasn't designed for bikes and the gap between the planks is big enough to swallow a wheel!
Fortunately, it was very low speed and mostly just embarrassing.
-
Hard News: Nelson Street: Not too…, in reply to BenWilson,
the most a speed bump every 5 metres or so.
Tricky question there. Do we really want/need to slow cyclists down?
Gah. I mispoke. I meant the little bump thingies they use you let drivers feel the lane not the dirty great big stupid things they put on the Dominion rd parallel cycle route.
Catseye-like
-
Hard News: Nelson Street: Not too…, in reply to Russell Brown,
Those look great. Intuitive and simple.
Just please don't use slippery paint for the markings.
Some kind of dividing line between fast and slow, but it shouldn't be anything like a curb. At the most a speed bump every 5 metres or so. The last thing you want is anything riders could slip on or wobble on.
Not sure about the division between opposing directions, it needs to be clear but again can't be anything you slip on or crash over.
-
Envirologue: Choose Wisely, Grasshopper:…, in reply to BenWilson,
But looking at what actually happened, we are now in a situation where the government for the first time in NZ history is looking like passing a bill that could surely have been passed 100 years ago if there had ever been the political will to do so.
As Rob pointed out this IS a new problem.
100 years ago the problem wasn't the quality of housing it was having enough houses at all.
30 years ago most houses were either owned or rented from the government.
It is only recently that two things happened first is the governments sold off a lot of government owned housing stock to private landlords and second is housing prices jumped so rapidly people stopped even trying to own and switched to renting long term.
This IS a new problem.
BUT the problem was identified before the recent deaths. It was noted by DHBs and some media. It was the reason the housing WoF bill was introduced to parliament.
Now for me, at that point a responsible well-led government would have looked at the legislation and said shit we need to do something about this because sooner or later folks are going to die.
You don't need a poll to tell you that this is a good thing to do. You know damn well there are shitty landlords out there who need some kind of rule of law to make them clean up the shitholes they are renting.
You are claiming this as a victory for the power of polling and an example of just how wonderful it is to have a government respond to polls.
I (and others) are decrying this as an example of a government who won't do anything unless it looks like they will lose support ... regardless of the morality.
That is why I and other despise this PM and his reliance on polling to define for him what is right and wrong.
-
Hard News: Nelson Street: Not too…, in reply to Russell Brown,
The piles for the connecting bridge being worked on this week.
How do you get down there to take that photo.
-
Envirologue: Choose Wisely, Grasshopper:…, in reply to BenWilson,
The fact is that every fact you bring up has been the case for thousands of years, just with different names, faces and places.
Obtuse again
Let me be really specific and see if I can get you to understand why your reversion to the generic philosophical argument makes me so very angry.
People are living in rental housing in New Zealand that is by any measure unfit for human habitation. If this was sub Saharan Africa that would be fine*, but it is not, it is New Zealand.
In New Zealand we have had several governments where leaders took taxes and used them to build and maintain housing that was pretty much given to the poor. So that New Zealanders would at least have places to live that were of a standard acceptable in the developed world.
Note I'm being really specific here.
Over the last 20 years successive governments have allowed that housing stock to become run down and sold significant portions of it off to landlords to be rented. In addition there has been a huge shift from owned housing to rented.
It has become clear from numerous sources, in particular the DHBs, that the health of New Zealanders is being damaged by housing that is sub standard, cold, damp, leaky etc etc. A significant portion of that housing is rental housing.
A bill was put forward to parliament that would set standards on housing that would force landlords (private and public) to maintain houses to a set level. Much the same as we have a WoF for cars that prevents dangerous vehicles from being legally on the roads.
This National government rejected the bill out of hand. That is a failure of leadership.
When people died and the issue was highlighted by the media this government responded by proposing essentially the same rules as were in the bill they rejected. It is likely they did polling that indicated they might lose votes if they didn't.
This is the behaviour I find despicable and that you are defending. To me it indicates a government content to allow its citizens to die unless it looks bad in the polling.
That is the specific not the generic. It is not a philosophical discussion.
*not really
-
Envirologue: Choose Wisely, Grasshopper:…, in reply to BenWilson,
If an opinion poll showing that people now want Warrants of Fitness for rentals caused the government to decide that is a good idea, then I’m glad I don’t have to wait until the next election for them to “lead” us into it by putting it in their manifesto and campaigning on it, before doing anything. Responding to public desire (which can itself also lag behind genuine need) isn’t in itself a bad thing. Sure, deaths from poor housing could have been prevented.
You are being obtuse for the sake of argument. That is not helpful or productive, it is simply a waste of everyones time.
The fact is there was a bill before parliament that actually addressed the very issue that lead to at least 2 deaths and many more illnesses.
The fact is National dismissed the bill because they didn't see the point of reducing the profits of landlords merely to protect the public
The fact is the moment the polls indicated the public were concerned about the health of the public National changed it's mind.
That is a government failing in its duty to protect and care for its citizens.
Your idea of poll driven policy is frankly stupid and no amount of waving your philosophy degree around is going to make it less stupid.
PEOPLE ARE FUCKING DYING BEN!
-
Hard News: Nelson Street: Not too…, in reply to Oliver Roberts - AKLCouncil,
The surface design is a chance to celebrate the route and make it stand out from the grey that surrounds it. Doesn’t have to mean flashy…. But that’s why we want the feedback.
Great to see you are reading this as well and thanks for dropping by.
I guess for me I'd like it minimalist in style. As Kevin McCloud points out minimalist is HARD. But the key is that it should feel like there is plenty of space for cyclists and pedestrians to stay clear of each other. The image shown suggested the space would be narrowed and that really doesn't help keep people safe.
Remember there will be people wanting to use the path to get somewhere fast as well as cyclists just dawdling and enjoying the space. When you have two directions for each use plus pedestrians that does not leave much room for large plantings and having the path weave back and forth unnecessarily.
Maybe you should start with it as simple as possible and then add things slowly if they make sense once you see how the route is used.
-
It does seem to me that actually getting regular cyclists to give input on the design and then listening to them should be something that Auckland Transport should do more often.
As I've said before the cycle routes paralleling Dominion Road are an example of how not to do it and strongly suggest that nobody on the design team actually rides a bike.
The basics aren't hard.
Make the road surface smooth, but not slippery - that shiny green paint you used is freaking dangerous in the wet.
Avoid hills and bumps - including speedbumps because on a bike it's harder to get back up to speed than just pressing on the accelerator after you've had to slow down.
Make sure the lighting is decent at night and shines on the road not on the cyclists head.
Keep the cars and buses off the bit where the bikes are - unless you want cyclists to be run over (yeah I have a friend like that).To be fair that last bit appears to be advanced design.
After you've mastered those design features then you can worry about making it look cool.