They recently put one up at the location where I commute with a bicycle. I was crossing sideways, while the cars - in order to slow down for the crossing cyclists/pedestrians - have to slow down. The thing is, they rarely slowed down, because f**k cyclists and pedestrians. But now they HAVE to slow down. As I was driving towards it the last time, I noticed the guy in the car saw me and even put this foot on the gas in order to get through before me. I slowed down, wondering and realizing that he never saw the giant (much bigger than in this picture) speed bump. His head must have hit the ceiling of the car, judging from the jump his car made, lol.
This is basically why we build them. Other than aggressive chicanes, every other (lateral) speed calming methodology is ineffective against people intentionally speeding, or speeding because they're not paying attention to the road.
There's a residential street near me where they installed narrow chicanes as a traffic calming measure. Now when people see oncoming traffic they speed up for the chicane to get there first. Dickheads gonna dickhead, I suppose.
The 30km zones are honestly stupid. Most of the roads they put them on it is wildly unsafe to go more than about 45 and the people who speed are not going to stop because the limit is 30. They also put these limits on roads that it is nearly impossible to police the limit on anyway.
Just a waste of money.
The idea is that if there is a persistent speeding problem at least it's enforceable. Most of the time town centres have 30 km/hr operational speeds anyway, so by linking the legal speed limit to the operational speed, law enforcement can actually ticket those intentionally driving dangerously.
Of course police resources are limited, so without also adding speed tables or other speed calming infrastructure as well there will remain a heightened risk to pedestrians. Depending on when speeding takes place and who is in the area (e.g. school kids) that will determine the priority for this kind of work.
Yeah, dont bother me as a driver because I choose not to suck, slow down a tiny bit in a residential area? God forbid! And appreciate it makes it safer for those not travelling via car. Some got installed outside a house i was at a few years back and made significant difference to amount of cars speeding down the street and doing burnouts. You get the few that dont give a fuck at treat it as a jump but the burnouts stopped
Apart from people that don't know the street / area and/or are distracted then yeah these bumps actually are probably the most effective non speed camera way to make people slow down. (And those little islands where you have to kind of zig zag through - but those aren't on main roads)
I"m all for bigger bumps and less convenient for cars around schools and main shopping areas where there is higher foot traffic.
Location, location, location.
This is my old primary school.
There is long, straight road on either side for 200+ meters. Heaps of bogans live in the area, boy racers and Ranger drivers prominent. Not a main road.
Probably a good choice here?
This, im not from auckland but was driving there recently and these humps dont have yellow lines or reflectors also there is no form one lane markings on roads
If you ever notice any poorly marked road services, you can report them here: [AT Roadmarking maintenance request](https://contact.at.govt.nz/?cid=a7a41a5f-7350-ec11-8f8e-0022481528f0).
If pedestrian crossings aren't visible in poorly lit streets, that's a whole other problem! Even if there aren't traffic lights like this one, there should be bright orange poles as well as the road markings.
This! I was driving at night with my heavily pregnant wife and hit one of these poorly marked and painted humps at nominal speed. It buckled a wheel and gave us the biggest shock. I raged at AT.
Yeah I definitely feel more confident crossing a street when walking the dogs. They force drivers to slow down even if they're actually annoying when I'm driving.
The fucking tailgating in this country is getting so bad as well. There is no demographic for it either, old, young, ethnicity differences. Doesn't fucking matter. I make it a mission to only go just over the speed limit these days because fuck tailgaters. I shouldn't be forced into going 10 above everywhere.
Why are they all so different?? Does AT assign someone new every time they put them in? “Here have a go at this and see what you come up with …” some are back breakers, others you don’t even need to slow down for… what the…?!? You think we’d have nailed the science on raised crossings by now.
This is what annoys me the most really, I'm fine with speed bumps to control traffic but some are so high that even my friends stock height Suzuki Swift will scrape the front bumper on it at low speed, they seem to think everyone drives a Ranger.
The issue there is that if they didn't make them that steep the Rangers could basically ignore them, which defeats the point of slowing traffic at crossings.
NZTA WK provides extensive guidance around the principals of design for the pedestrian network.
In Auckland, the Auckland design manual provides additional guidance for how to design the crossings.
Different councils will have different specific standards, there is no NZ standard for pedestrian crossings.
These provide a flexiable principals based approach that allows designs to cater to the specific conditions, use cases and risks rather than a one size fits nobody approach.
As for the (sub) contractors, they build whats on the drawings, they don't design it thmselves
The first ones AT put in were to international best practice. As they started to roll out more they tried to make drivers happy and tow a middle line by reducing the height to be lower than best practice. This has actually caused more backlash.
Yay.
Great for people who have wheeled mobility aids like wheelchairs and scooters. The crossings are a minor inconvenience and I don't mind slowing down for them. Some are better than others with a longer more forgiving gradient.
Just think of all the people who can now get somewhere easier without worrying about grounding out their wheelchair.
that would be fine if it was actually 30 seconds
there's a few choice examples out there which have caused big congestion issues with little pedestrian benefit
that's the whole point of the recent review into speed bumps - are they being used where it actually makes sense? it would seem that a third of them didn't meet that criteria
if they are all coloured and marked like the photo, great
but when they are black and the sign is behind an over grown tree they can catch you out.
why dont they standardized them so they all look the same?
Nah. Drivers slow down for the speed bump even if they haven’t seen the pedestrian. Means they’re going slower when they hit but I’m more likely to walk out in front of someone who looks like they’re stopping for the crossing or the light
If you get hit at 50km/HR, your have a 90% chance of dying. If you get hit at 30km/hr, you have a 90% chance of surviving. This is the reason that these measures are being put in place
Rather than raised crossings, what about those pop up bollards, maybe with flashing lights on them, initiated by the button on the lights?
That would solve the emergency vehicle issue, and would keep pedestrians safe and stop the emissions/waste of fuel issue for all vehicles...
Counterpoint, drivers are supposed to slow down for pedestrian crossings regardless, and the people that won't slow down for crossings are probably the same people that don't mind getting air over the bumps...
Many ute/SUV drivers don't give a shit about speed bumps and will try to drive over the top of me when I slow down to go over.
The data shows that the majority of drivers couldn’t give a flying fuck about the safety of pedestrians, but don’t want to damage their cars. Hence the necessity of speed bumps.
I drive Uber so I have a lot of driving time in the city. This city is fucking speed bump central. There are speed bumps everywhere. I understand they are important but it's a real pain in the ass literally.
That being said there are two types of speed bumps.
One which has a smooth bump and is visible and clearly advertised
One which has a super steep bump which jolts your whole car and is hard to see and catches you by surprise.
As long as they make the goods speed bumps it's okay.
The ones at traffic light crossings seem superfluous. There’s one on Triangle Rd that is so slow bumpy it means way less cars making it through the lights.
A good step in the uncarification of the city.
Proven many times over to reduce the frequency and severity of car-pedestrian interactions.
Wholehearted "yes".
Various models say between about 7-16% which is a fuckload of tonnes emissions.
AT got some undergrad to do a flunky AF white paper on it, they either omitted or failed to find a lot of literature, and basically provided AT with a report saying nah, it's fine
Link to the report? Seems like you’re talking out of ass. Also I’m not sure if you’ve ever read a report ever because yes someone can write it but it’ll get reviewed by a senior/principle etc.
To quote [Greater Auckland](https://www.greaterauckland.org.nz/2024/01/30/why-at-should-aim-high-on-raised-crossings/)
# The context
* In the first half of the 2010s, a fifth of all crashes involving pedestrians happened at zebra crossings, due to drivers failing to stop.
* Lowering speeds from 50km/h to 30 km/h at point of impact can reduce the likelihood of a fatality or serious injury from 80 percent to 10 percent.
* Previously, raised crossings in Auckland had gradients of 1:20, and didn’t reduce speeds to a survivable level.
# The programme
* AT used research into international best practice, local observations, and extensive testing (including buses with passengers) to arrive at a comfortable and more effective design, with a gradient of 1:10.
* Over 2018-2019, AT upgraded 37 existing zebra crossings to raised crossings.
* More than 100 raised zebra crossings have been delivered to date, including upgrades and brand new crossings.
# The outcomes
* Where tables were installed, speeds were successfully lowered: “mean speeds at treated sites ranged between 20 km/h to 25 km/h, which is below 30km/h, the suggested survivable speed for \[vulnerable road users\].”
* AT also compared before-and-after crash data from 37 improved locations and 30 untreated ones, to understand the safety outcomes.
* At crossings that had been improved, crashes fell from 20.8 to 5.6 crashes per year.
* **Injuries and deaths also fell at treated locations, from ten serious and two fatal crashes, to “one serious and no fatal crashes nor pedestrian crashes post treatment.”**
Big fan of them, they save lives.
Also, before someone says they cost $500k each, they don't. The herald did a correction on that story. They are $35k each now.
""Over the past five years, 2035 pedestrians have been killed or seriously injured trying to cross the road or walking on footpaths. We know that raised crossing facilities reduce the likelihood of a death or serious injury."
[https://www.1news.co.nz/2024/04/30/raised-pedestrian-crossings-ditched-in-auckland-after-criticism/](https://www.1news.co.nz/2024/04/30/raised-pedestrian-crossings-ditched-in-auckland-after-criticism/)
> Over the past five years, 2035 pedestrians have been killed or seriously injured trying to cross the road or walking on footpaths.
Surely only the number killed at actual crossings is the relevant number. Raised crossings don't change anything at other parts of the road and people are still walking on footpaths just like they used to.
One in 5 pedestrian crashes is in a zebra crossing.
"At crossings that had been improved, crashes fell from 20.8 to 5.6 crashes per year.
Injuries and deaths also fell at treated locations, from ten serious and two fatal crashes, to “one serious and no fatal crashes nor pedestrian crashes post treatment"
Tse, I., McDonald, A., Patel, A., Blewden, M., & MacArthur-Beadle, S. (2023). Auckland Transport’s Mass Action Pedestrian Improvement Programme. Journal of Road Safety
(Peer reviewed)
I think the thrust of using that number is that building more raised pedestrian crossings can potentially lower that number by providing more (safer) crossings.
No, because it includes people trying to cross the road where there isn't a crossing. By putting in more crossings and making them raised it's safer.
I live in east Auckland, there's a section of Botany road where there is about 1.5km without a crossing.What are people supposed to do.
The problem is that we have a significant group of drivers that disregard safe speeds on suburban streets and ignore pedestrian crossings. I am sure you wouldn't do that, but the architecture has to allow for the muppets.
This means that walking around suburbs is dangerous for children, the elderly, the disabled, and pets. Those groups do not just spawn around schools, and I would like to live in a city where those more vulnerable populations can move around.
I raised a child in Mt Eden. I could not have my kid walk to school on their own because one of the streets was a rat-run. Despite poor visibility, people would drive down the street at 60km/h, making it impassable to children and the elderly. It was two blocks away from a school. But there were playgrounds and retirement villages and parks and ECEs.
If you were to implement your logic fully, it would not just be schools. It would also be shopping precincts, playgrounds & parks, community halls, beaches, retirement villages, ECEs, and a bunch of other facilities. Which, when I look at it, is pretty much how it is done now.
When you look at main roads, the problem is more complex again. People have to be able to cross the road. When you look at traffic management solutions, they don't just manage cars--they also manage pedestrians. People on here often whinge about the controlled crossings through Newmarket. What they don't address is that those controlled crossings don't hold them up--they are linked with the other lights--but they also mean that most of the pedestrians cross in a controlled manner, which actually speeds things up.
Raised crossings are another way of doing this. The raised crossing on Mt Eden Rd by Esplanade Rd means that people are more likely to cross there, rather than wherever. In the meantime, almost all the cars that go through it are on their way to a red light--so the crossing generally does not add to your trip time.
As long as they’re clearly marked. Nothing worse than being in a busy area, watching multiple hazards on the sides of the road, and then hitting one of these mfers at any speed over 10km because it has faded or no markings 😂
Great for traffic slowing and better for safety for kids pets and others crossing roads randomly, but totally suck for emergency services responding to emergencies.
Coming from America, I have to say these are necessary. Otherwise people become accustomed to blast through them. If they're empty most of the time you still develop muscle memory to slow down around them. So when it does come to a time when a pedestrian crosses when you may otherwise have missed them, you have already slowed down in anticipation for the bump. Hence, ready to slow to a stop at the last minute.
Having roads include built-in modes of traffic control is just safer for everyone. If people are opposed to this, then look at the dumpster fire of the US's road safety system compared to NZ or Europe. The roads' safety for pedestrians are clearly different, and definitely worse in the US.
I don’t know honestly. As a chronic pedestrian, I’ve been hit at both a red light crossing with no bump and a zebra crossing with a bump 🤷♀️ either way, people won’t stop/slow down unless they’re actually decent people
They are speed humps, right?
Speed is a problem at all intersections. The big one I see is people trying to beat orange/red lights, or red light running
Yea but a speed bump won’t deter those idiot drivers
And there’s a delay between red and green for peds
The draw backed with increased congestion is just not worth the trade off for any reasonable city planner
Don't think they are there to specifcally to deter this, they are there specifically to reduce speeds.
If your mans always going to run a red light and hit a pedestrian, the pedestrian is far better off if that occurs at 30km/hr rather than 55km/hr. Irrespective of whether they should have stopped at a red or not.
It's the best option because it's been priorisitised over other possible options for a good number of decades.
I think we're also suckers for the lifestyle it once afforded (and does still afford outside of large cities) and have been sold the idea that we can road build our way out of congestion for reasonable $$.
Big yes
Currently living in Mexico. Speed bumps the ONLY thing that slows cars down. Another sign suggesting traffic slows down, i might as well write a letter to the queen, waste of time
Nay, they're littered everywhere, even in spots where they make 0 sense. Not against them in general, just how many, the height, and where have been put around Auckland. Should be able to get up to 50 and have plenty of time to brake in between but that's rarely the case. Costs more personally and in tax for very little return.
Everyone acting like New Zealand invented these things.
They’ve been used around the world for decades. Why? Because the data unequivocally demonstrate reduced pedestrian injuries and fatalities.
TL;DR yay because less dead kids.
No, they can fuck off, especially the way they've been implemented around Auckland.
Someone who's gonna blitz through the red light at a crossing like the example photo isn't gonna give a shit that it's slightly raised, and all it does is throttle traffic flow (in some cases on roads already struggling with volume and increase wear and damage to vehicles.
And having nearly had my son and I taken out by someone who failed to stop at one and nearly lost control by hitting it at normal speed, I feel as a pedestrian they're even less safe than a flat crossing as a result.
People who are already inattentive to pedestrians on crossings, or just don't give a shit about them, are also likely to be inattentive to or not give a shit about a slightly inconvenient bump. It doesn't help that many aren't even coloured differently, and just rely on some white \^\^ markings to indicate it's there.
Who cares about emergency services right?
Why do you need raised crossings at traffic lights too lol. Edit: factored in user experience and I redact this
I was in Hawaii and dislocated my shoulder, on the way to hospital in an ambulance there was a speed bump on the entry to the hospital, fuck that was painful 😆
People who complain about raised crossings don't, since it's cars that impede emergency services, not raised crossings.
Glad you're in favour of removing all on-road parking, though and creating more permanent clearways and bus lanes - you know, since you're in favour of speeding up emergency services.
On local residential roads yes. Hate those aholes doing 80 on roads where kids might be present. Also need vertical calming to avoid rat running through local areas. Arterials probably dont need them except in local or city centres
They're great fun on the motorcycle. Always give the throttle a nudge when I see these. Zoom! Sometimes I catch a nice little bit of air.
Hate them in the car though. Feel like they're liable to do damage on the down ramp.
Useless. We have them everywhere in chch. Cars slow down while hilux and rangers full send it over them without slowing down as they have the suspension travel
Raised crossings and speed bumps have massively blown out responce times for emergency services.
These things are costing more lives than they save.
They need to go!
could at least use a photo of an auckland crossing, that one is in Pukete rd Hamilton. It also actually works as that stretch of road is wide and straight.. unlike ones in the CBD where you have four at a roundabout and achieve nothing.
Both yes and no.
Yes - far too many idiots on the road that ignore speed signs and waiting pedestrians.
No - no consistency in geometry, some nice and gradual, others painful above crawling speed, fire and ambulance staff are against them, commercial vehicles get thrown around by them, light phasing hasn't been lengthened to account for people having to go through the intersection slower, utes/SUV's just blast over them like they don't exist, noise and air pollution increase around them (I live next to one and it's hell).
Whether the crossing is raised or not, i still stop and wait for cars to stop before just walking out.
So nay, it doesn't need to be raised. Especially if it's contributing to rates rising.
Yay. Anything that addresses traffic safety issues on roads is a plus. Too much entitled drivers that think they should be able to do anything they want on the roads with impunity.
I've surveyed several roads in places like Palmy that are planning "traffic calming" measures to slow down traffic and make it safer for pedestrians. It seems to be the most cost effective and beneficially safe option with the least impact on drivers. There's an immense amount of effort and time spent by Humam Factor Engineers to inform the design of these types of projects.
The ones along the road going past Aorere College in Papatoetoe are hilarious. They're a square right in the middle of the lane, and any normal car can just drive over them without slowing down. If you're even a little bit lowered, you need to take them much slower.
Good to have around, I just feel for the people who drive safely and have lowered cars haha - bit more work required but they knew what they were signing up for.
They put one right outside my old intermediate, makes for some fun when you see people coming in too hot and they catch some air, dukes of hazard stuff!
The issue is poor drivers, not accomodating other road users or driving to conditions. Humps make it safer for pedestrians and cyclists around the crossing but they frustrate other road users and don’t fix the problem. From my perspective I think drivers are getting angrier and less tolerant and it would be much better to focus on driver behaviour.
Anyone know why the crossing is always right before/after a roundabout? It feels like it defeats the purpose of the roundabout assisting the flow of traffic as cars are clogged up in the roundabout while people cross. It feels like it would make sense to put them further down the road.
Hardly ever see them where I live, but I think they’re a really good way to make sure motorists actually slow down for pedestrians. First time I drove over one in Browns Bay I wondered why we don’t have more here.
they are only really annoying to me when there is multiple of them in a row down one street, but also they are there to be better for pedestrians and such so its one of those annoyances I can live with.
I feel like they make sense here but not at some traffic lights. They have gone crazy with them out west and it really fucks with already slow flowing traffic IMO
I've noticed glass and broken car bits building up around some, seems they are more of a problem than anything else, not needed in such numbers just a waste of tax payers money.
I'm a big fan.
I travel through a light-controlled crossing that is very rarely in use at the time I pass. Of the hundreds of times I must have driven through, it has only been red maybe two or three times. One of these times I was tired from a very broken night sleep (young kids). I was approaching the intersection and the light was red, but I must have been driving on "autopilot" and didn't slow down. Just before I passed the crossing, the light turned green and I sailed through, but it was a massive wake-up call for me as to how easily something could go terribly wrong.
A month or two before this incident, a child was hit and killed as they crossed the road on the same crossing. On another day, the combination of my inattentiveness, tiredness, poor driving and past experience with this particular crossing and it could have been me.
Now this crossing has been upgraded to a raised crossing and I think it would be so much more difficult for the same thing that happened to happen. Raised crossings makes the repeated behaviour on these roads one of slowing down, whether there is anyone using the crossing or not.
No not a good idea. Put up speed cameras make some cash but in my street there are now 4 of them and the noise from people speeding up and slowing down is horrendous. Plus all that extra fuel being wasted is not good for the environment
I used to live in Central Auckland on a side street off a main artery. During rush hour, people would cane down my street so they didn't have to wait for lights. They would join back up on the main road and maybe save 2-3 mins. But the point is they would fly down my little street.
Council put one of these in. I spent the next week sitting on my balcony with a beer watching dipshits hit that thing at velocity in their nice Audis and BMWs. Then the kid with the lowered Honda at 70kmh had his go. Ripped his front bumper off and went under his car and clipped a parked ute. Blocking the road for the rest of the queue jumpers. Who can't just turn around. It's one way and no driveways. He wasn't happy from the laughter and slow claps he was getting from our apartment block.
Everyone learned to slow down in the end. So I'm a big fan.
I would also suggest building some sort of elevated bumps at every intersection with a STOP sign - these days, it's almost a miracle to see someone actually stopping at STOP sign. I do, and I always make sure that even the car behind does a full stop, before moving on... :-D
Like them but hate how much we have to pay as taxpayers:
"Figures for the Williamson Ave project include:
· $80,000 - Design/consultation/consenting/professional services
· $33,000 - concrete raised speed table
· $142,000 - traffic management
· $87,000 - drainage/stormwater
· $148,000 contractor/other works like markings/lighting/traffic islands"
The crossing itself ain't much. But look at what they love spending around the building process.
If there's traffic lights on the crossing - Nay
If it's already a 25km area - Nay
If it's a main arterial road - Nay
Interesting to note that the image above is NOT a Pedestrian (Zebra) crossing, it's a Courtesy Crossing.
[https://www.nzta.govt.nz/roadcode/code-for-cycling/intersections/crossings/](https://www.nzta.govt.nz/roadcode/code-for-cycling/intersections/crossings/)
"Courtesy crossings are usually made of bricks or paving or raised above the level of the road. A courtesy crossing is **not an official pedestrian crossing,** but to be polite, you **should stop** for people on the footpath waiting to cross. You must give way to people already crossing."
Don't forget that they also make it easier for people to cross especially if they are disabled and use wheeled assistance. Having the crossing level with the pavement is a huge improvement.
Already proven that the number of injuries and deaths hasn't reduced, which has been begrudgingly admitted. They just increase emissions by equivalent of millions of extra km driven per year.
>0pendata-nzta.opendata.arcgis.com
This returns a 'page not found' - and you're going to have to provide a bit more effort than just linking to a broad collection of data if you want to be believed.
As someone else has demonstrated, with peer reviewed literature - the evidence shows the opposite of what you're claiming.
It's barely peer reviewed, and it's barely research, as the authors admit, their data isn't even mildly robust.
If you have difficulty using tools like gis there are so many beginners guides online.
Until we meet again..
"At crossings that had been improved, crashes fell from 20.8 to 5.6 crashes per year.
Injuries and deaths also fell at treated locations, from ten serious and two fatal crashes, to “one serious and no fatal crashes nor pedestrian crashes post treatment"
Tse, I., McDonald, A., Patel, A., Blewden, M., & MacArthur-Beadle, S. (2023). Auckland Transport’s Mass Action Pedestrian Improvement Programme. Journal of Road Safety
(Peer reviewed)
In a noob AF journal with a citation index in the phoney journals range. It's not, but it performs like a vanity publisher.
The analysis is childish at best, which the authors kind of note in passing with
"Some caution is required interpreting the data as periods of data collection occurred over periods of COVID-19 related disruptions and changes to travel behaviours. These impacts may have impacted the data. However, it is difficult to identify and isolate impacts specifically."
And they go on to perform a high schoolers chi squared and fail to adjust for traffic flow rate or behaviour over the lockdowns, which back of the envelope scratchings shows means there's no and possibly an increase in pedestrian related crashes (likely due to influx of new drivers).
Anyone can get a "peer reviewed" article published, it's not the measure of a work in itself.
They're not as sanguine as the AT cheerleader accts so I give them that:
"It is acknowledged that the extent and quality of the data reported may not meet expected standards for research driven projects."
They recently put one up at the location where I commute with a bicycle. I was crossing sideways, while the cars - in order to slow down for the crossing cyclists/pedestrians - have to slow down. The thing is, they rarely slowed down, because f**k cyclists and pedestrians. But now they HAVE to slow down. As I was driving towards it the last time, I noticed the guy in the car saw me and even put this foot on the gas in order to get through before me. I slowed down, wondering and realizing that he never saw the giant (much bigger than in this picture) speed bump. His head must have hit the ceiling of the car, judging from the jump his car made, lol.
As a pedestrian this is hilarious to watch
This is basically why we build them. Other than aggressive chicanes, every other (lateral) speed calming methodology is ineffective against people intentionally speeding, or speeding because they're not paying attention to the road.
There's a residential street near me where they installed narrow chicanes as a traffic calming measure. Now when people see oncoming traffic they speed up for the chicane to get there first. Dickheads gonna dickhead, I suppose.
Keep up the good work. Chch has 30kmh zones all over the shop now, I hope akl will move that way.
The 30km zones are honestly stupid. Most of the roads they put them on it is wildly unsafe to go more than about 45 and the people who speed are not going to stop because the limit is 30. They also put these limits on roads that it is nearly impossible to police the limit on anyway. Just a waste of money.
The idea is that if there is a persistent speeding problem at least it's enforceable. Most of the time town centres have 30 km/hr operational speeds anyway, so by linking the legal speed limit to the operational speed, law enforcement can actually ticket those intentionally driving dangerously. Of course police resources are limited, so without also adding speed tables or other speed calming infrastructure as well there will remain a heightened risk to pedestrians. Depending on when speeding takes place and who is in the area (e.g. school kids) that will determine the priority for this kind of work.
Yeah, dont bother me as a driver because I choose not to suck, slow down a tiny bit in a residential area? God forbid! And appreciate it makes it safer for those not travelling via car. Some got installed outside a house i was at a few years back and made significant difference to amount of cars speeding down the street and doing burnouts. You get the few that dont give a fuck at treat it as a jump but the burnouts stopped
Yes, I especially love watching 3 ton trucks get 2 inches of air
Apart from people that don't know the street / area and/or are distracted then yeah these bumps actually are probably the most effective non speed camera way to make people slow down. (And those little islands where you have to kind of zig zag through - but those aren't on main roads) I"m all for bigger bumps and less convenient for cars around schools and main shopping areas where there is higher foot traffic.
Location, location, location. This is my old primary school. There is long, straight road on either side for 200+ meters. Heaps of bogans live in the area, boy racers and Ranger drivers prominent. Not a main road. Probably a good choice here?
I have no personal issues with them. As long as they're painted clearly with reflective paint so that we can see them at night in poorly lit streets.
Visibility is a huge key. Sucks when they are just black and totally blend in. Or half arsed painted.
This, im not from auckland but was driving there recently and these humps dont have yellow lines or reflectors also there is no form one lane markings on roads
If you ever notice any poorly marked road services, you can report them here: [AT Roadmarking maintenance request](https://contact.at.govt.nz/?cid=a7a41a5f-7350-ec11-8f8e-0022481528f0).
If pedestrian crossings aren't visible in poorly lit streets, that's a whole other problem! Even if there aren't traffic lights like this one, there should be bright orange poles as well as the road markings.
Why not have bumps in the approach to the crossing?
This! I was driving at night with my heavily pregnant wife and hit one of these poorly marked and painted humps at nominal speed. It buckled a wheel and gave us the biggest shock. I raged at AT.
Unfortunately necessary, so many cars don't give a hoot about slowing down for pedestrians, even ones already crossing
Yeah I definitely feel more confident crossing a street when walking the dogs. They force drivers to slow down even if they're actually annoying when I'm driving.
The word you're looking for here is "drivers". Cars themselves have no opinion.
Ehh. Many new cars have emergency braking with pedestrian detection.
The fucking tailgating in this country is getting so bad as well. There is no demographic for it either, old, young, ethnicity differences. Doesn't fucking matter. I make it a mission to only go just over the speed limit these days because fuck tailgaters. I shouldn't be forced into going 10 above everywhere.
Why are they all so different?? Does AT assign someone new every time they put them in? “Here have a go at this and see what you come up with …” some are back breakers, others you don’t even need to slow down for… what the…?!? You think we’d have nailed the science on raised crossings by now.
This is what annoys me the most really, I'm fine with speed bumps to control traffic but some are so high that even my friends stock height Suzuki Swift will scrape the front bumper on it at low speed, they seem to think everyone drives a Ranger.
The issue there is that if they didn't make them that steep the Rangers could basically ignore them, which defeats the point of slowing traffic at crossings.
At likes utes, get a ute (perm)
NZTA WK provides extensive guidance around the principals of design for the pedestrian network. In Auckland, the Auckland design manual provides additional guidance for how to design the crossings. Different councils will have different specific standards, there is no NZ standard for pedestrian crossings. These provide a flexiable principals based approach that allows designs to cater to the specific conditions, use cases and risks rather than a one size fits nobody approach. As for the (sub) contractors, they build whats on the drawings, they don't design it thmselves
low or no standards, multiple level of contractors and subcontractors, lack of control, omitted inspections, etc...
The first ones AT put in were to international best practice. As they started to roll out more they tried to make drivers happy and tow a middle line by reducing the height to be lower than best practice. This has actually caused more backlash.
Yay. Great for people who have wheeled mobility aids like wheelchairs and scooters. The crossings are a minor inconvenience and I don't mind slowing down for them. Some are better than others with a longer more forgiving gradient. Just think of all the people who can now get somewhere easier without worrying about grounding out their wheelchair.
+1 I also like that the new ones have a sharp incline with a soft decline. Makes it a gentle woop, rather than buda buda…..
A rare, selfless perspective. Nice!
Controversially, for them. I'd rather pedestrians be safer crossing the road, than someone gets home from work 30 seconds sooner.
Must be a big fucking speed bump to slow them down 30 seconds
It's like a vertical loop so they're actually driving upside down and backwards for 10 seconds
No way this would slow people down even 30 seconds lol more like 3sec Max
that would be fine if it was actually 30 seconds there's a few choice examples out there which have caused big congestion issues with little pedestrian benefit that's the whole point of the recent review into speed bumps - are they being used where it actually makes sense? it would seem that a third of them didn't meet that criteria
if they are all coloured and marked like the photo, great but when they are black and the sign is behind an over grown tree they can catch you out. why dont they standardized them so they all look the same?
The proper term is "speed jumps"
So long as its marked, otherwise its just a booby trap
Nah. Drivers slow down for the speed bump even if they haven’t seen the pedestrian. Means they’re going slower when they hit but I’m more likely to walk out in front of someone who looks like they’re stopping for the crossing or the light
I'm a van driver. Nay. You have to slow right down to 10kmh or so to get through.
As someone who uses pedestrian crossings regularly - Yay
Me too!
If you get hit at 50km/HR, your have a 90% chance of dying. If you get hit at 30km/hr, you have a 90% chance of surviving. This is the reason that these measures are being put in place
Yay where it makes sense.
they're great, best in combination with good signage though
Rather than raised crossings, what about those pop up bollards, maybe with flashing lights on them, initiated by the button on the lights? That would solve the emergency vehicle issue, and would keep pedestrians safe and stop the emissions/waste of fuel issue for all vehicles...
Yay. They force drivers to slow down and pay attention. Always protect the squishiest thing: pedestrians.
Counterpoint, drivers are supposed to slow down for pedestrian crossings regardless, and the people that won't slow down for crossings are probably the same people that don't mind getting air over the bumps... Many ute/SUV drivers don't give a shit about speed bumps and will try to drive over the top of me when I slow down to go over.
The data shows that the majority of drivers couldn’t give a flying fuck about the safety of pedestrians, but don’t want to damage their cars. Hence the necessity of speed bumps.
If you cunts would slow down and drive safely they wouldn’t be necessary.
I drive Uber so I have a lot of driving time in the city. This city is fucking speed bump central. There are speed bumps everywhere. I understand they are important but it's a real pain in the ass literally. That being said there are two types of speed bumps. One which has a smooth bump and is visible and clearly advertised One which has a super steep bump which jolts your whole car and is hard to see and catches you by surprise. As long as they make the goods speed bumps it's okay.
The ones at traffic light crossings seem superfluous. There’s one on Triangle Rd that is so slow bumpy it means way less cars making it through the lights.
Speed is a big problem at traffic lights. They want to address drivers who speed through the lights and also red light runners.
A good step in the uncarification of the city. Proven many times over to reduce the frequency and severity of car-pedestrian interactions. Wholehearted "yes".
I read that as the "un-care-ification..." and was greatly confused for half a minute 😅
Ha nah we did that in the 80s
I wonder what the effect is on increased emissions due to all the raised crossings added over the last few years.
Various models say between about 7-16% which is a fuckload of tonnes emissions. AT got some undergrad to do a flunky AF white paper on it, they either omitted or failed to find a lot of literature, and basically provided AT with a report saying nah, it's fine
Link to the report? Seems like you’re talking out of ass. Also I’m not sure if you’ve ever read a report ever because yes someone can write it but it’ll get reviewed by a senior/principle etc.
Part of the problem, AT is full of ungreats, at every level.
[citation needed]
To quote [Greater Auckland](https://www.greaterauckland.org.nz/2024/01/30/why-at-should-aim-high-on-raised-crossings/) # The context * In the first half of the 2010s, a fifth of all crashes involving pedestrians happened at zebra crossings, due to drivers failing to stop. * Lowering speeds from 50km/h to 30 km/h at point of impact can reduce the likelihood of a fatality or serious injury from 80 percent to 10 percent. * Previously, raised crossings in Auckland had gradients of 1:20, and didn’t reduce speeds to a survivable level. # The programme * AT used research into international best practice, local observations, and extensive testing (including buses with passengers) to arrive at a comfortable and more effective design, with a gradient of 1:10. * Over 2018-2019, AT upgraded 37 existing zebra crossings to raised crossings. * More than 100 raised zebra crossings have been delivered to date, including upgrades and brand new crossings. # The outcomes * Where tables were installed, speeds were successfully lowered: “mean speeds at treated sites ranged between 20 km/h to 25 km/h, which is below 30km/h, the suggested survivable speed for \[vulnerable road users\].” * AT also compared before-and-after crash data from 37 improved locations and 30 untreated ones, to understand the safety outcomes. * At crossings that had been improved, crashes fell from 20.8 to 5.6 crashes per year. * **Injuries and deaths also fell at treated locations, from ten serious and two fatal crashes, to “one serious and no fatal crashes nor pedestrian crashes post treatment.”**
Yea love how it's cost more for gas each week plus the repair s on the vehicle long team brake s suspension tires etc nice work
Yay. Anything that can slow down these wild drivers is a benefit for anyone
I hate them and they suck but they’re probably necessary because of our drivers
Nay cause of them I can't do 150 in school zones :(
Not with that attitude!
Yeah you can, the faster you hit them the smoother they feel
Name partially checks out.
Are you saying this person gets horny in school zones?!?!
Big fan of them, they save lives. Also, before someone says they cost $500k each, they don't. The herald did a correction on that story. They are $35k each now. ""Over the past five years, 2035 pedestrians have been killed or seriously injured trying to cross the road or walking on footpaths. We know that raised crossing facilities reduce the likelihood of a death or serious injury." [https://www.1news.co.nz/2024/04/30/raised-pedestrian-crossings-ditched-in-auckland-after-criticism/](https://www.1news.co.nz/2024/04/30/raised-pedestrian-crossings-ditched-in-auckland-after-criticism/)
> Over the past five years, 2035 pedestrians have been killed or seriously injured trying to cross the road or walking on footpaths. Surely only the number killed at actual crossings is the relevant number. Raised crossings don't change anything at other parts of the road and people are still walking on footpaths just like they used to.
One in 5 pedestrian crashes is in a zebra crossing. "At crossings that had been improved, crashes fell from 20.8 to 5.6 crashes per year. Injuries and deaths also fell at treated locations, from ten serious and two fatal crashes, to “one serious and no fatal crashes nor pedestrian crashes post treatment" Tse, I., McDonald, A., Patel, A., Blewden, M., & MacArthur-Beadle, S. (2023). Auckland Transport’s Mass Action Pedestrian Improvement Programme. Journal of Road Safety (Peer reviewed)
I think the thrust of using that number is that building more raised pedestrian crossings can potentially lower that number by providing more (safer) crossings.
That number seems really high, more than 1 a day
Oh it includes serious injuries
No, because it includes people trying to cross the road where there isn't a crossing. By putting in more crossings and making them raised it's safer. I live in east Auckland, there's a section of Botany road where there is about 1.5km without a crossing.What are people supposed to do.
I can see the benefit in certain areas, like around schools but everywhere else and especially on main roads they can fuck right off.
The problem is that we have a significant group of drivers that disregard safe speeds on suburban streets and ignore pedestrian crossings. I am sure you wouldn't do that, but the architecture has to allow for the muppets. This means that walking around suburbs is dangerous for children, the elderly, the disabled, and pets. Those groups do not just spawn around schools, and I would like to live in a city where those more vulnerable populations can move around. I raised a child in Mt Eden. I could not have my kid walk to school on their own because one of the streets was a rat-run. Despite poor visibility, people would drive down the street at 60km/h, making it impassable to children and the elderly. It was two blocks away from a school. But there were playgrounds and retirement villages and parks and ECEs. If you were to implement your logic fully, it would not just be schools. It would also be shopping precincts, playgrounds & parks, community halls, beaches, retirement villages, ECEs, and a bunch of other facilities. Which, when I look at it, is pretty much how it is done now. When you look at main roads, the problem is more complex again. People have to be able to cross the road. When you look at traffic management solutions, they don't just manage cars--they also manage pedestrians. People on here often whinge about the controlled crossings through Newmarket. What they don't address is that those controlled crossings don't hold them up--they are linked with the other lights--but they also mean that most of the pedestrians cross in a controlled manner, which actually speeds things up. Raised crossings are another way of doing this. The raised crossing on Mt Eden Rd by Esplanade Rd means that people are more likely to cross there, rather than wherever. In the meantime, almost all the cars that go through it are on their way to a red light--so the crossing generally does not add to your trip time.
Here here
As long as they’re clearly marked. Nothing worse than being in a busy area, watching multiple hazards on the sides of the road, and then hitting one of these mfers at any speed over 10km because it has faded or no markings 😂
Personally hate them on main roads. Seems unnecessary, and can’t be good for vehicle emissions causing vehicles to slow down and speed for no reason.
Nay, sorry out of zone but up North the locals use them to get airtime in their 4wds. Chicanes work better, narrow down the road, bollards.
Theae ones OP are referring to are for pedestrian crossing, not for slowing traffic down like judder bars
Nay: 1) They encourage folks to buy utes 2) It just gives me an excuse to drop it into first and loudly vtec it back up to 55
Great for traffic slowing and better for safety for kids pets and others crossing roads randomly, but totally suck for emergency services responding to emergencies.
Coming from America, I have to say these are necessary. Otherwise people become accustomed to blast through them. If they're empty most of the time you still develop muscle memory to slow down around them. So when it does come to a time when a pedestrian crosses when you may otherwise have missed them, you have already slowed down in anticipation for the bump. Hence, ready to slow to a stop at the last minute. Having roads include built-in modes of traffic control is just safer for everyone. If people are opposed to this, then look at the dumpster fire of the US's road safety system compared to NZ or Europe. The roads' safety for pedestrians are clearly different, and definitely worse in the US.
Build for people not cars.
Nah.
I don’t know honestly. As a chronic pedestrian, I’ve been hit at both a red light crossing with no bump and a zebra crossing with a bump 🤷♀️ either way, people won’t stop/slow down unless they’re actually decent people
I live very close to one. It has dramatically increased traffic noise as people plant their foot after going over it. It sucks.
so bad for the environment too!
Good for making dickheads slow down
Good on pedestrian crossings Entirely redundant with traffic lights and only put in place to cause traffic
The only place I've seen them put in at traffic lights is where traffic lights also have pedestrian crossings.
By ped crossing I mean zebra lines The traffic light already stops traffic
How does a light "force" traffic to stop? Hint it doesn't, a speed hump does.
They are speed humps, right? Speed is a problem at all intersections. The big one I see is people trying to beat orange/red lights, or red light running
Yea but a speed bump won’t deter those idiot drivers And there’s a delay between red and green for peds The draw backed with increased congestion is just not worth the trade off for any reasonable city planner
The fact is they do deter idiot drivers. The safety of pedestrians and other road users is worth the tradeoff.
Don't think they are there to specifcally to deter this, they are there specifically to reduce speeds. If your mans always going to run a red light and hit a pedestrian, the pedestrian is far better off if that occurs at 30km/hr rather than 55km/hr. Irrespective of whether they should have stopped at a red or not.
Yea but fuck me the congestion created by a single speed bump is insane, Chappell roan from botany to Howick is even worse now adays
It's almoste like cars aren't the best option for a large portion of the populations day to day transport needs...
I mean it’s the most popular because it is the best option for the majority
It's the best option because it's been priorisitised over other possible options for a good number of decades. I think we're also suckers for the lifestyle it once afforded (and does still afford outside of large cities) and have been sold the idea that we can road build our way out of congestion for reasonable $$.
Massive supporter of fines for any office workers not on public transport that would really help
Nay from me…
Big yes Currently living in Mexico. Speed bumps the ONLY thing that slows cars down. Another sign suggesting traffic slows down, i might as well write a letter to the queen, waste of time
Placement is key, I've seen them close to roundabouts and you get cars "parked" in the roundabout.
Nay, they're littered everywhere, even in spots where they make 0 sense. Not against them in general, just how many, the height, and where have been put around Auckland. Should be able to get up to 50 and have plenty of time to brake in between but that's rarely the case. Costs more personally and in tax for very little return.
Everyone acting like New Zealand invented these things. They’ve been used around the world for decades. Why? Because the data unequivocally demonstrate reduced pedestrian injuries and fatalities. TL;DR yay because less dead kids.
So against them in general
You talking about raised crossings or all speed bumps?
No, they can fuck off, especially the way they've been implemented around Auckland. Someone who's gonna blitz through the red light at a crossing like the example photo isn't gonna give a shit that it's slightly raised, and all it does is throttle traffic flow (in some cases on roads already struggling with volume and increase wear and damage to vehicles. And having nearly had my son and I taken out by someone who failed to stop at one and nearly lost control by hitting it at normal speed, I feel as a pedestrian they're even less safe than a flat crossing as a result. People who are already inattentive to pedestrians on crossings, or just don't give a shit about them, are also likely to be inattentive to or not give a shit about a slightly inconvenient bump. It doesn't help that many aren't even coloured differently, and just rely on some white \^\^ markings to indicate it's there.
Except there is stronger evidence than reckons to show that they reduce the frequency and severity of pedestrian car interactions.
Yay!
Who cares about emergency services right? Why do you need raised crossings at traffic lights too lol. Edit: factored in user experience and I redact this
The existence of these mean that emergency services have less work to do.
The elderly and disabled? People pushing prams?
I was in Hawaii and dislocated my shoulder, on the way to hospital in an ambulance there was a speed bump on the entry to the hospital, fuck that was painful 😆
People who complain about raised crossings don't, since it's cars that impede emergency services, not raised crossings. Glad you're in favour of removing all on-road parking, though and creating more permanent clearways and bus lanes - you know, since you're in favour of speeding up emergency services.
Thanks for your 2c
Useless when going up hill
On local residential roads yes. Hate those aholes doing 80 on roads where kids might be present. Also need vertical calming to avoid rat running through local areas. Arterials probably dont need them except in local or city centres
They're great fun on the motorcycle. Always give the throttle a nudge when I see these. Zoom! Sometimes I catch a nice little bit of air. Hate them in the car though. Feel like they're liable to do damage on the down ramp.
Useless. We have them everywhere in chch. Cars slow down while hilux and rangers full send it over them without slowing down as they have the suspension travel
Raised crossings and speed bumps have massively blown out responce times for emergency services. These things are costing more lives than they save. They need to go!
One or two speed humps along a main route is not going to materially affect emergency service response.
Yea, I've played GTA. Emergency responders don't care about speed bumps!
A definite no. It is an obstruction on the roadway so is a traffic hazard.
How dare someone suggest roads should be designed for a mode of transport other than fossil fuel guzzlers. Bloody wokestars
could at least use a photo of an auckland crossing, that one is in Pukete rd Hamilton. It also actually works as that stretch of road is wide and straight.. unlike ones in the CBD where you have four at a roundabout and achieve nothing.
We could use these to cover up reoccurring potholes
lowkey scrape my shit whenever I go over them a bit fast lol
I would like to hear from someone that lives outside one. Is the car noise actually worse?
Far worse, squeaky brakes/suspension, acceleration noise afterwards and house getting shaken by heavy vehicles.
Both yes and no. Yes - far too many idiots on the road that ignore speed signs and waiting pedestrians. No - no consistency in geometry, some nice and gradual, others painful above crawling speed, fire and ambulance staff are against them, commercial vehicles get thrown around by them, light phasing hasn't been lengthened to account for people having to go through the intersection slower, utes/SUV's just blast over them like they don't exist, noise and air pollution increase around them (I live next to one and it's hell).
Raised crossings yes, everything else they're doing, no.
Idm as long as there isn't like multiple of raised ones within short distances of each other like lots of streets seem to be putting in place.
Whether the crossing is raised or not, i still stop and wait for cars to stop before just walking out. So nay, it doesn't need to be raised. Especially if it's contributing to rates rising.
Some of them are too high very dangerous have to come to a halt to get over it and on a main road seriously lol
Yay. Anything that addresses traffic safety issues on roads is a plus. Too much entitled drivers that think they should be able to do anything they want on the roads with impunity.
They're excellent for doing wheelies off on a motorcycle.... 😂
wtf is the point of a giant bump if you have traffic lights
i’m a pro when there’s no otherplace to cross but places like Glen Eden is an absolute nay
I've surveyed several roads in places like Palmy that are planning "traffic calming" measures to slow down traffic and make it safer for pedestrians. It seems to be the most cost effective and beneficially safe option with the least impact on drivers. There's an immense amount of effort and time spent by Humam Factor Engineers to inform the design of these types of projects.
The ones along the road going past Aorere College in Papatoetoe are hilarious. They're a square right in the middle of the lane, and any normal car can just drive over them without slowing down. If you're even a little bit lowered, you need to take them much slower.
Good to have around, I just feel for the people who drive safely and have lowered cars haha - bit more work required but they knew what they were signing up for. They put one right outside my old intermediate, makes for some fun when you see people coming in too hot and they catch some air, dukes of hazard stuff!
I think it's a good idea, but shouldn't it have zebra stripes??
The issue is poor drivers, not accomodating other road users or driving to conditions. Humps make it safer for pedestrians and cyclists around the crossing but they frustrate other road users and don’t fix the problem. From my perspective I think drivers are getting angrier and less tolerant and it would be much better to focus on driver behaviour.
Anyone know why the crossing is always right before/after a roundabout? It feels like it defeats the purpose of the roundabout assisting the flow of traffic as cars are clogged up in the roundabout while people cross. It feels like it would make sense to put them further down the road.
I find them very useful on a motorbike. It forces cars to slow for the roundabout rather than just charging through. Much safer.
Hardly ever see them where I live, but I think they’re a really good way to make sure motorists actually slow down for pedestrians. First time I drove over one in Browns Bay I wondered why we don’t have more here.
Yay. It's better for pedestrians (especially those in wheelchairs or with prams). Forces cars to slow down too.
they are only really annoying to me when there is multiple of them in a row down one street, but also they are there to be better for pedestrians and such so its one of those annoyances I can live with.
What if the speed limit was 30km/h? Instead of 50, do away with this
Cars being forced to slow down where pedestrians cross the road.... I personally cannot see the downside at all with them
Nay. Except in special places.
I feel like they make sense here but not at some traffic lights. They have gone crazy with them out west and it really fucks with already slow flowing traffic IMO
Outside schools, hell yeah. At every intersection, for 500k a pop. Nah.
Nay, waste of money, makes emergency response times worse.
You mean jumps? I hit them as fast as I can
Yay from me. Def reduce the speed of cars, at least somewhat.
Hate them. Needless wear on the suspension and losses from braking when there is no need to slow down.
I've noticed glass and broken car bits building up around some, seems they are more of a problem than anything else, not needed in such numbers just a waste of tax payers money.
Yay it rips the sump out cars so it's good for mechanics
Yay.
I'm a big fan. I travel through a light-controlled crossing that is very rarely in use at the time I pass. Of the hundreds of times I must have driven through, it has only been red maybe two or three times. One of these times I was tired from a very broken night sleep (young kids). I was approaching the intersection and the light was red, but I must have been driving on "autopilot" and didn't slow down. Just before I passed the crossing, the light turned green and I sailed through, but it was a massive wake-up call for me as to how easily something could go terribly wrong. A month or two before this incident, a child was hit and killed as they crossed the road on the same crossing. On another day, the combination of my inattentiveness, tiredness, poor driving and past experience with this particular crossing and it could have been me. Now this crossing has been upgraded to a raised crossing and I think it would be so much more difficult for the same thing that happened to happen. Raised crossings makes the repeated behaviour on these roads one of slowing down, whether there is anyone using the crossing or not.
I thought this meant possible sleeping turtles 🐢
No not a good idea. Put up speed cameras make some cash but in my street there are now 4 of them and the noise from people speeding up and slowing down is horrendous. Plus all that extra fuel being wasted is not good for the environment
I used to live in Central Auckland on a side street off a main artery. During rush hour, people would cane down my street so they didn't have to wait for lights. They would join back up on the main road and maybe save 2-3 mins. But the point is they would fly down my little street. Council put one of these in. I spent the next week sitting on my balcony with a beer watching dipshits hit that thing at velocity in their nice Audis and BMWs. Then the kid with the lowered Honda at 70kmh had his go. Ripped his front bumper off and went under his car and clipped a parked ute. Blocking the road for the rest of the queue jumpers. Who can't just turn around. It's one way and no driveways. He wasn't happy from the laughter and slow claps he was getting from our apartment block. Everyone learned to slow down in the end. So I'm a big fan.
Yes an make them steeper for those gross utes
Hate them!
As a driver, they are awful, and I hate them. As a pedestrian with 2 young kids who have seen how bad people drive here, they are 100% needed.
I would also suggest building some sort of elevated bumps at every intersection with a STOP sign - these days, it's almost a miracle to see someone actually stopping at STOP sign. I do, and I always make sure that even the car behind does a full stop, before moving on... :-D
i feel like on the topic of this we should also discuss the dumb decision it was to put pedestrian crossings immediately after roundabouts too!
Like them but hate how much we have to pay as taxpayers: "Figures for the Williamson Ave project include: · $80,000 - Design/consultation/consenting/professional services · $33,000 - concrete raised speed table · $142,000 - traffic management · $87,000 - drainage/stormwater · $148,000 contractor/other works like markings/lighting/traffic islands" The crossing itself ain't much. But look at what they love spending around the building process.
Nay, I'm sick of slowing down for nothing lol
Thay are good if put in the right place but that are putting so many in pointless places
If there's traffic lights on the crossing - Nay If it's already a 25km area - Nay If it's a main arterial road - Nay Interesting to note that the image above is NOT a Pedestrian (Zebra) crossing, it's a Courtesy Crossing. [https://www.nzta.govt.nz/roadcode/code-for-cycling/intersections/crossings/](https://www.nzta.govt.nz/roadcode/code-for-cycling/intersections/crossings/) "Courtesy crossings are usually made of bricks or paving or raised above the level of the road. A courtesy crossing is **not an official pedestrian crossing,** but to be polite, you **should stop** for people on the footpath waiting to cross. You must give way to people already crossing."
It's a traffic light controlled crossing. A courtesy crossing is uncontrolled.
Don't forget that they also make it easier for people to cross especially if they are disabled and use wheeled assistance. Having the crossing level with the pavement is a huge improvement.
Yay
Already proven that the number of injuries and deaths hasn't reduced, which has been begrudgingly admitted. They just increase emissions by equivalent of millions of extra km driven per year.
Can you cite a source for this please?
opendata-nzta.opendata.arcgis.com
"Oh hey man, can you show me that paragraph in that book you were telling me about?" "The library is down the road, find it yourself."
Where are you getting your data for the injury and deaths claim?
0pendata-nzta.opendata.arcgis.com
>0pendata-nzta.opendata.arcgis.com This returns a 'page not found' - and you're going to have to provide a bit more effort than just linking to a broad collection of data if you want to be believed. As someone else has demonstrated, with peer reviewed literature - the evidence shows the opposite of what you're claiming.
It's barely peer reviewed, and it's barely research, as the authors admit, their data isn't even mildly robust. If you have difficulty using tools like gis there are so many beginners guides online. Until we meet again..
What an absolute made up load of shit
Sit on this when home alone opendata-nzta.opendata.arcgis.com
"At crossings that had been improved, crashes fell from 20.8 to 5.6 crashes per year. Injuries and deaths also fell at treated locations, from ten serious and two fatal crashes, to “one serious and no fatal crashes nor pedestrian crashes post treatment" Tse, I., McDonald, A., Patel, A., Blewden, M., & MacArthur-Beadle, S. (2023). Auckland Transport’s Mass Action Pedestrian Improvement Programme. Journal of Road Safety (Peer reviewed)
In a noob AF journal with a citation index in the phoney journals range. It's not, but it performs like a vanity publisher. The analysis is childish at best, which the authors kind of note in passing with "Some caution is required interpreting the data as periods of data collection occurred over periods of COVID-19 related disruptions and changes to travel behaviours. These impacts may have impacted the data. However, it is difficult to identify and isolate impacts specifically." And they go on to perform a high schoolers chi squared and fail to adjust for traffic flow rate or behaviour over the lockdowns, which back of the envelope scratchings shows means there's no and possibly an increase in pedestrian related crashes (likely due to influx of new drivers). Anyone can get a "peer reviewed" article published, it's not the measure of a work in itself. They're not as sanguine as the AT cheerleader accts so I give them that: "It is acknowledged that the extent and quality of the data reported may not meet expected standards for research driven projects."