Like many locals we enjoy a morning walk along the shared harbourside pathway. It is a wonderful resource in a beautiful part of the world. This morning while talking to friends near Glenfalloch we were almost bowled over by a cyclist travelling at about 25-30kmh. He made no attempt to slow down. Shortly after this a whole herd of cyclists came whizzing down the path, again making no attempt to slow down; it was clearly their right to commandeer the shared path and walkers needed to get out of their way.
This got me thinking. We have a wonderful resource, but is it fit for purpose?
Just last month Stuff reported that an 82-year-old lady was hit from behind by a cyclist while walking in the path outside the Ernest Rutherford Retirement Home in Stoke. The lady suffered fractures to her wrist, nose, and jaw; was knocked unconscious and has concussion. A fit elderly lady now has life-changing injuries.
In 2022 ACC reported that there were 396 ongoing claims from pedestrians hit by cyclists and 335 new claims, these at a cost of almost $2million. Of the new claims 189 were soft tissue injuries, 44 fractures or dislocations and 10 concussions or brain injuries. We clearly have a problem and it is likely that the number of accidents and near misses are vastly under-reported. Being a pedestrian near cyclists is dangerous and can be deadly. How can the shared path be made safe and enjoyable for all those who use it? A recent trip to Denmark and Sweden highlighted the value of the cycle bell. Everywhere we walked we came across cyclists and they all had, and knew how to use their bell as a warning. A simple but effective way of saying, I want to pass.
The other obvious thing was that shared paths were far wider, typically double the width of the harbour path, giving plenty of space for both pedestrians and cyclists. My third observation was that there was much more respect between pedestrians and cyclists than I have observed in Dunedin.
The Harbour Loop is now complete and it would be unrealistic to expect major changes to its structure to make it safe, the opportunity has been missed. There are some tweaks that could be made to improve it.
Along Portobello Rd the path is separated from the road by concrete blocks. Some are about a metre apart, the ones between Glenfalloch and Macandrew Bay are a full block apart and the ones from Rosehill Rd to Glenfalloch only a few centimetres apart. The widely spaced ones allow cyclists to move easily between the path and the road, the ones with almost no gap are a barrier to pushchairs, wheelchairs, and mobility scooters. It would be easy remove alternate blocks to improve access between the shared path and on-road cycleway.
The Code for Cycling requires cyclists to "pass other people with patience and care", and on shared paths, "use slower speeds and give way to slower users" and "let pedestrians know you are approaching by politely calling out or ringing a bell well in advance". It would seem that few cyclists are aware of the Cycle Code requirements. DCC has put a few signs down on the path as reminders but they are few and far between (a 5km gap between signs in some places) and largely ignored.
There are no speed limits for bicycles but e-bikes are required to cycle at a "speed consistent with other users so that it does not put others at risk or make them feel uncomfortable when you pass".
NZTA have not been a leading light in promoting pedestrian safety. There is no requirement for cyclists to have bells and e-scooters are still allowed on footpaths. NZTA could learn a lot from the Netherlands cycle rules; €150 ($NZ265) fine for using a cellphone while cycling, €40 for no working bell, €110 for not giving priority. Better signage, reminding pathway users of their responsibilities at appropriate points on the path may help but the response from DCC in the past indicates they have little interest in pedestrian safety.
Cycling advocacy groups could remind members of their responsibility to other shared path users and DCC could, through local media highlight the need for care.
It is great to see people out enjoying the Harbour Loop and many cyclists are obviously just out to enjoy their trip and respect other users. Sadly, there is a good proportion of cyclists who seem to think that path is for their use and show no respect for others.
So, is the Harbour Loop fit for purpose? Despite its design faults the Harbour Loop can be fit for purpose if users are careful and considerate. In the meantime, on a cold, wet, windy day it is great, there are usually not many cyclists. On a weekend we now usually avoid it, it can be too dangerous.
- David Tordoff is a retired Dunedin School of Medicine education adviser.
