Submission from Spokes Canterbury
Reference: https://www.nzta.govt.nz/about-us/public-consultation-hub/current-consultations/consultation-on-lane-use-improvements
March 2026
Tēnā koutou katoa
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Cashmere Road and Penruddock Rise Intersection Upgrade
Introduction
Spokes Canterbury (http://www.spokes.org.nz/) is a local cycling advocacy group with approximately 1,300 followers. Spokes is affiliated with the national Cycling Action Network (CAN – https://can.org.nz/). Spokes is dedicated to including cycling as an everyday form of transport in the greater Christchurch and Canterbury areas. Spokes has a long history of advocacy in this space including writing submissions, presenting to councils, and working collaboratively with others in the active transport space. We focus on the need for safe cycling for those aged 8 to 80. Spokes also supports all forms of active transport, public transport, and has an interest in environmental matters.
Proposal 1: Do you agree with allowing children aged 12 years and under to ride bikes on footpaths?
Yes
Please explain your answer or provide any relevant examples or evidence.
Spokes supports this change. In most cases the safest place for young people to cycle is on the footpath. This change is simply legalising current behaviour and does not cause major problems. Generations of New Zealanders have biked on footpaths as they learned to ride. The skills learned from riding on the footpath also apply to separated cycleways where you also have to watch closely for vehicles exiting driveways.
This will enable those who teach cycling, such as BikeReady or Cycle Safe, to support children to ride on the footpath and teach them how to recognise and react to appropriate hazards. This may also be an opportunity for formal teaching of younger children than the current practice rather than relying on parents. In Finland children start riding a bike at 3-4 years and are taught skills in school from 5 years.
Are there any other impacts that need to be considered (such as safety, accessibility, and compliance) if the proposal is implemented?
Yes
Please explain your answer or provide any relevant examples or evidence.
This is current practice but some messaging to drivers and cyclists would help, such as always looking at driveways, watching out for tradies, encouraging both the driver and cyclist to reduce speed in conflict zones, wearing hi-vis, and using lights when visibility is low. Children should also be taught good etiquette such as giving priority to more vulnerable users than themselves and how to behave around dogs.
There are genuine safety issues that can be improved with better sight lines for drivers which may require less street parking and recommending cars come out of driveways front first where possible rather than reversing as it is safer.
Some of our members believe that legally allowing children to ride on the footpath will reduce the incentive for the Council and NZTA to provide safe cycling infrastructure and that the reason that children are cycling on the footpath is that our roads are unsafe. They believe there is a risk that if a young cyclist is hit on the road then there will be victim blaming. It should be very clear that if a driver hits a young cyclist on the road it is the driver’s fault.
These change proposals do not fix the underlying problem of the serious lack of investment in safe infrastructure for cyclists, pedestrians and other more vulnerable road users. The NZTA spend on this type of infrastructure was woefully inadequate even before the reduction in 2023.
Proposal 2: Do you agree with introducing a minimum passing distance when drivers overtake other road users (such as cyclists, horse riders, and micro-mobility users)?
Yes
Spokes strongly supports safe passing distances. Close passes are scary. Most regular cyclists have horror stories of being tipped or forced into a parked car by a driver not paying attention. An incident can stop a less confident cyclist from cycling at all. A legal passing distance will make drivers more accountable for their actions. It will also allow a messaging campaign on the importance of giving cyclists an appropriate distance.
Spokes would prefer a 1.5m passing distance on any road as 1.0m leaves little room for error above 40km/h and the consequences are serious. A 1.5m minimum is consistent and easy to clearly communicate with drivers.
Drivers who do not have enough space to pass safely or at the legal requirement should not pass a cyclist until the conditions change. This includes blind corners, at traffic lights, in narrow streets, in areas with traffic calming etc. On multi-lane roads the vehicle should change lanes if that option is available. Truck and Bus drivers should allow 1.5M and have enough space to pull in after passing a cyclist.
There should be appropriate penalties for not following the law.
Are there any other impacts that need to be considered (such as safety, accessibility, and compliance) if the proposal is implemented?
There should be an easy way to report injuries or near misses and get an appropriate response from police. Even with video evidence there is little a cyclist can do to make a driver accountable for dangerous passing.
Large vehicles and those towing large objects create turbulence that can buffet a cyclist, particularly at higher speeds.
Proposal 3: Do you agree with allowing e-scooters to be used in cycle lanes?
Yes
We should all share the road. E-scooter riders travelling sensibly at similar speeds to cyclists are welcome to use cycle lanes, as well as other mobility devices such as trikes and electric wheelchairs. All riders should follow normal etiquette of safely sharing the space with others and following road rules. Moving faster e-scooters to cycleways will make the footpaths safer for more vulnerable people, including young cyclists.
Are there any other impacts that need to be considered (such as safety, accessibility, and compliance) if the proposal is implemented?
There needs to be some enforcement for bad behaviour and reckless riding. Some e-scooters are overloaded making them unstable. Some commercial and private e-scooters are going too fast for shared paths or cycle lanes. Shifting the problem into the cycleways will not help.
Proposal 4: Do you support requiring drivers to give way to buses leaving bus stops on roads with speed limits of 60 km/h or less?
Yes
When public transport is fast and reliable, more people will use it. This reduces congestion which benefits cyclists as well as drivers. We support cyclists having to give way to buses as well. Many cyclists will wait behind the bus already so this change will speed up their trip.
Are there any other impacts that need to be considered (such as safety, accessibility, and compliance) if the proposal is implemented?
Cyclists can take longer to pass a bus having started before the bus indicates to pull out. Drivers need to take this into account and always look to see it is safe to pull out.
Proposal 5: Do you agree with the proposal to clarify that signage is not required for berm parking rules to be enforceable?
Yes
Cars need to park safely in a way that does not impede accessibility or safety for others. Often cars on berms are protruding into spaces used by cyclists and pedestrians.
Are there any other impacts that need to be considered (such as safety, accessibility, and compliance) if the proposal is implemented?
Enforcement will improve accessibility and safety for everyone.
I would like to talk to this submission if there is an opportunity and I am happy to discuss or clarify any issues that arise.
Ngā mihi nui,
Submissions Co-ordinator
Spokes Canterbury
submissions@spokes.org.nz
In form
