urban sprawl

If it’s not about cycling, what is it about?

Biker on bridge

There’s a story waiting to be told.

It’s not about me, or you. It’s not about how individuals choose to ride. It’s not a personal issue at all. In fact, it’s not even about cycling.

It’s about better cities, mobility, transport equality, making roads safe for all road users. Once that has been established, it’s about choosing strategies that will help turn those goals into reality.

The bicycle is one of the potential solutions to building a better city. It’s a transport tool. Not to be confused with a sports and recreation tool. Effective advocacy can convince risk averse politicians and a sceptical public, that urban cycling is worth investing in, even if they personally don’t want to do it.

Every action needs to be predicated on those goals. Put the passion for ‘cycling’ in a separate box and start speaking in a language that the uninformed will understand. That will require the involvement of people with a wide range of expertise and interest. A ‘building a better city’ team.

It requires nuance and an ability to embrace contradiction. How do you get more people cycling without focussing on cycling? How do you make something that is so life affirming to be so common and normal?

‘Cycling’ is sport and recreation. ‘Riding a bike’ is everyday activity. No sweat.

Get involved via: Twitter, FacebookFlickr or Vine

Words of an addict: “Just one more motorway.”

Traffic is not like water; it doesn’t evaporate.

“No city in the world has ever been able to pave it’s way out of traffic congestion”,

is what I wanted to yell at say to Duncan Garner when I heard him announce on his radio show of his support for the removal of six pohutakawa trees to make way for an extra lane of traffic. Duncan, cities that are overrun by, or over reliant on cars are not happy or healthy cities. Please, wake up and smell the fumes.

And besides, it was Janette Sadik-Kahn who told an Auckland audience in 2014, that our “current transport model is a luxury we can no longer afford; change is an economic imperative.” It’s the economy, stupid. I know whose wisdom I prefer.

To his credit, Duncan recognises that his support is based on selfish needs; he wants his driving experience to be enhanced. But he also repeats the familiar line that our addiction to cars and the lack of decent public transport means we have to keep building and extending the motorway/roading network. That there is no alternative. That is such a crappy argument.

My children would also eat KFC everyday, if I gave them no alternative.


I’m hoping that the six pohutakawa will be saved. I’m also hoping that their survival will be the catalyst for a higher level of engagement on how we want Auckland to develop. I fear that its wonderful natural endowments are being eroded by poor urban (non)management. Sprawl is no longer our friend. It never was.

Our arrival at this point is no accident. Sprawl, and the induced demand for the more motorways, cars and driving it has created, have come about through decades of deliberate policy settings at a national level. Give the people what they want, but first, starve them of informed debate. That’s how the political process seems to work.

We are told that the removal of the trees will create space for new cycle lanes. I really hope that the people who speak on behalf of cycling in this city, publicly reject this offer. But ‘at the end of the day’, pragmatism is the chosen path. I mean, for a change, how about the trees are left alone, AND the cycle lanes are built? How about we ask the transport agency (the public organisation charged with catering to all road users) to nick a bit of space off the motorist? That’s a novel idea. But while the person on the bicycle is known as the ‘outlier’, that’s always going to be a tough sell.

The bridge without access to walking and cycling

That Auckland harbour bridge that does not provide access to walking and cycling

Within this context, it comes as no surprise that Aucklanders can still only get across their magnificent Waitemata harbour by motor vehicle or ferry. Needless to say, you drive for ‘free’ but pay to take the ferry. No provision was ever made for walking or cycling. But that may all change with the #skypath project inching ever closer. You can add your voice to growing calls to make it happen, by completing a quick submission form.

There is a lot of stake here. The 6 pohutakawa and the #skypath should not be seen in isolation. Together they are the physical manifestation of the government’s continued commitment to funnel the ‘lion’s share’ of transport funding into roading projects at the expense of alternatives. That’s the big picture that needs to brought into relief. There’s a bigger story to be told and people like Mr Garner will not do us any favours.

It’s nice to get a new cycle way built but does it have to come bundled with an oversized motorway or roading project? It has all the connotations of a Faustian bargain. How long will the juggernaut roll on, unchecked? Addiction is hard to deal with. Acknowledging the addiction would be a good first step. Saving the 6 pohutakawa would feel like progress is being made towards moving beyond denial.

‘Cycling’ is sport and recreation. ‘Riding a bicycle’ is everyday activity. No sweat.

Get involved via: Twitter, FacebookFlickrVine or Instagram.

Submission to the ‘Safer Journeys for People who Cycle’ draft report.



Back in 2014 I made a submission to the ‘Safer Journeys for People who Cycle’ consultation. This blog post reflects what I tried to convey in my submission. It still represents my view on how I think we need to approach the task of getting more people using bicycles as a form of transport – equal measures of infrastructure, policy and marketing. How are we doing since then, I wonder?

I support the draft recommendations proposed by the Cycling Safety Panel and its desire to achieve a transport landscape that allows for the safe movement of people on bicycles. I am encouraged by the panel’s acknowledgement and understanding of the benefits that cycling brings and the barriers to making that happen, as detailed below:-

1. Participation in cycling and cycling safety are inextricably linked.
2. Increases in cycling participation will bring safety benefits to individuals and to the wider community alike.
3. Economic and societal benefits of investing in cycling are irrefutable.
4. Riding a bicycle is inherently safe and the prevention of crashes with motor vehicles is the issue that needs to be addressed.

However, I am concerned that the panel’s recommendations lack the necessary clarity and boldness. Without any clearly stated cycling mode share targets set, there is a risk that the reports recommendations will not achieve its stated goals.


In New Zealand’s current transport landscape, cyclists are catered for as though they are two-wheeled motor vehicles. This is problematic because cycling is more akin to walking than driving. If we are to be successful in encouraging more people to cycle, this reality needs to be addressed. In New Zealand we rely on campaigns such as ‘Share the road’ which suggest that all road users have equal responsibility to stay safe. Whereas the Dutch have set the standard for best practice in this area. It is called ‘Sustainable Safety‘. As the draft report acknowledges, riding a bicycle is inherently safe. It is being hit by a fast moving vehicle that makes it unsafe. The current environment is far from equal.

Quality infrastructure is the critical factor in creating a transport environment that encourages people to choose to ride a bicycle on a daily basis for transport purposes. This infrastructure comes in a variety of forms. The creation of  ‘mobility environments‘ has changed the way road transport is approached. Infrastructure is designed to cater for all road users. Safety is designed into the infrastructure.

A well designed transport/mobility environment:-

  • makes cycling irresistible,
  • is built for the 99% who aren’t cycling now but who could be cycling,
  • follows ‘desire lines’ and goes where people want to go,
  • recognises cyclists are just fast-moving pedestrians and does not try to treat them as cars,
  • has infrastructure that will take cyclists to common destinations such as jobs, shops, businesses and schools.


Creating a cyclised city will not happen in isolation. Transport policies that promote cars ahead of other forms of transport will make it less likely for people to choose to switch to riding a bicycle. The way a city is designed will impact on the rate of cycling uptake. Instead of encouraging sprawl, housing needs to be built around transport hubs and multi-modal transport needs to be encouraged and supported.

A well designed city is one in which people live in an environment that allows them to work and play in close proximity. It’s about reducing travel demand and creating opportunities for short journeys to be achieved by bicycle. Minimum car parking requirements need to be removed from city planning laws to enable this transition to alternative transport to happen.

Cities that have high rates of everyday cycling also have the following features in common:-

  • reduced speed limits,
  • well developed road behaviour social contracts,
  • freedom to choose to wear a bicycle helmet,
  • bike share programmes.


The ‘normalised’ culture of cycling that we need does not come about by accident. It comes about as a result of a range of deliberate strategic interventions. The need for quality infrastructure and supportive transport policies have already been mentioned. But there is also a role for high quality marketing that promotes the value of everyday cycling. The value of cycling needs to be ‘sold’ to the public in order to build the political will that is essential to encourage a shift away from our present car-centric transport policies towards socially and economically sustainable transport options.

The word ‘cycling’ needs to become synonymous with meaning ‘short trips in normal clothes on a comfortable bike for people between the age of 8-80, male or female’.

The dominant perception of cycling at the moment is that it is for sports and recreational purposes; for the fit, brave or foolhardy. That’s a massive barrier to overcome, if we are to get the 99% of people who aren’t cycling now, to consider giving cycling a go. Like issues of real safety are dealt with by building quality infrastructure, issues of perceived safety need to be taken seriously too and addressed by implementing quality marketing.

Currently, cycling promotion focuses on safety by making it look dangerous. It focuses on the wearing of helmets and hi-viz. This kind of scare mongering plays into the fears of non-cyclists by reinforcing their current misplaced beliefs. Even the word ‘cycling’ creates misconceptions. That is why you will see the phrase ‘wheeled pedestrian cycling’ or ‘riding a bicycle’ now being used instead.

The full implementation of the above key strategies of infrastructure, policy and marketing will be needed to bring about the success that the ‘Safer Journeys for People who Cycle’ report says that it desires. Underpinning this success will be a sufficient level of funding. A level of funding that reflects the value and contribution a city full of people on bicycles brings.

‘Cycling’ is sport and recreation. ‘Riding a bicycle’ is everyday activity. No sweat. As easy as walking, but faster.

Get involved via: Twitter, FacebookFlickr.

Or, enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

The trouble with cycling.

No cyclist here; just a person on a bicycle.

No cyclist here; just a person on a bicycle, on a bridge.

Roads are for everyone and road rules were made for all road users.

Then modern cities arrived and urban sprawl was born. And along with a house in the ‘burbs came the promise of fast and cheap car commutes and demands for affordable parking. So even though the road rules have remained the same, the urban landscape looks and operates very differently. Cars are the norm. They dominate our cities.

But things are changing. Although most of our politicians seem to have misplaced the memo, cars are not turning out to be the panacea that they were once intended to be. Increasingly, there is talk of – climate change, active transport, ‘urban density done-well’. Demands for alternatives to the long-haul car commute will continue to get louder. Happy people live close to where they work and play, apparently. We are starting to witness a ‘conflict’ of ideas. How do we want our cities of the future to be? Is the current model sustainable, resilient or desirable?

And it’s important to reiterate that it’s not actually all about the cycling or being anti-car even; it’s about making cities for people the top priority. And just because we can’t imagine our cities being fully functioning without the car being centre stage, that doesn’t mean it isn’t possible or that changes shouldn’t be made. That’s why it’s so important to be taking inspiration and ideas from cities around the World that have already made the transition.

Within a context of cities being designed for cars and motoring being made so accessible and privileged, it’s easy to see how the bicycle has come to be the fall guy. Bicycles, as a transport form, don’t cut the mustard. In the current inCARnation of our cities, bicycles were never going to be able to (nor should they have been expected to) compete with cars or public transport over longer travel distances.

Some people have managed to make the switch from the car to the bicycle for their long distance commute. However, the failure of cycling to be seen as a serious transport option, is evidenced in the lack of people willing to take on this brave, but ultimately fear-inducing form of transport. At the same time, the role of the bicycle as the perfect tool for short, local trips (the wheeled pedestrian variety – e.g. from home to a nearby train or bus station) has been largely overlooked.

Bicycles exist in a kind of twilight zone.

So the road rules clearly state the expectation that bicycles are to be treated like two-wheeled motorists. They are entitled to claim the lane and must also follow all the road rules that motorists are obliged to follow.  But apart from the few brave souls already mentioned, the remainder of the population (if they choose to ride a bicycle for transport at all) is more likely to ride a bicycle at a slow, comfortable speed over much shorter distances. (Cycling to school comes to mind).

But in reality, cyclists are neither cars or pedestrians.  The road rules are also very clear in that people on bicycles are not allowed to be on the footpath. That is the domain of the pedestrian. It always amuses me how pedestrians and cyclists will fight it out for some scraps of space on the side of the road, while the motorist remains largely ignorant of the conflict going on on the periphery. (Full disclosure: I will always defer to the safety of slow riding on the footpath if my real or perceived safety feels compromised).

Cyclists as ‘outliers’.

So, while motorists rule the roost and pedestrians are accorded a modicum of space and respect (which may be due to the fact that all motorists are pedestrians – but not all motorists are cyclists), cyclists live in a parallel World. Unsure, uncategorised and not particularly welcomed anywhere. This phenomenon is witnessed daily – on the roads and in the media. Fortunately for us, the hard work in understanding this situation has been done for us.

Transport psychologist Dr Ian Walker says,

Not only are cyclists an outgroup, they’re also a minority outgroup. Moreover, they are engaging in an activity that is deemed slightly inappropriate in a culture that views driving as normative and desirable and, arguably, views cycling as anti-conventional and possibly even infantile.

With cyclists being a readily identifiable minority group, this leads to the tendency of drivers to attribute behavior to personality or disposition, rather than a situation or environment. It’s called fundamental attribution error. The conversation goes like this,

A. “I just saw a cyclist go through a red light”.

B. “Yeah. Bloody cyclists! They always do that”.

The outlier status of cyclists means that drivers will tend to blame poor behaviour of some cyclists on all cyclists. Further to that, and speaking from personal experience, cyclists are more likely to be making (what is perceived to be) poor decisions or breaking the road rules in order to keep themselves safe. Because you have to remember, our cities have been built for cars, not people or people on bicycles. And according to the surveys, a healthy majority of people say they would ride a bicycle “if it was safe to do so”.

So while the research is unequivocal; cycling is a worthwhile activity and should be encouraged, there is still limited impetus to take it too seriously as a form of transport. We are still too conflicted. The car still dominates transport policies and budgets. Sprawl is still being provided as the solution to a housing shortage.

In the meanwhile, we continue to focus on training cyclists to stay safe around cars and encouraging obedience to the road rules. Back to Dr Ian Walker, on the issue of  “all cyclists should wear hi-viz” argument. (You know, the argument favoured by the New Zealand coroner).

…there are other reasons to be suspicious of high-visibility gear, not least that it transfers responsibility from the driver of the metal box that creates the danger to the victim of that danger.

Instead, we need to be,

  • seeking a consensus that supports prioritising the moving of people safely ahead of the moving of high car volumes.
  • designing our city streets and promoting transport policies that are people and bicycle friendly.
  • promoting cycling in a way that makes cyclists less an unpredictable “out group” and more an integral part of the urban transportation fabric.

Anything less is merely tinkering around the edges.

‘Cycling’ is sport and recreation. ‘Riding a bicycle’ is everyday activity. No sweat. As easy as walking, but faster.

Get involved via: Twitter, FacebookFlickr.

Or, enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.