SCAM ALERTS: Refund email and Vehicle licence (rego) renewal phishing emails

ONLINE SERVICES: We currently have an issue with receiving some payments and are working to resolve this issue as quickly as possible. We apologise for any inconvenience.

EASTER WEEKEND – PLAN AHEAD: Heading away for the long weekend? Check our holiday journeys tool(external link)

COVID-19 SERVICES UPDATE: Information on Waka Kotahi services

This part of the CNG keeps the industry up to date with cycle design trials that are currently underway, or have been completed in recent years, and also what cycling-related rules are being reviewed and when. 

Trials

A number of trials are presented here to support the design guidance, these include formal trials (ie those that have to go through the official NZ Transport Agency process to approve a new traffic control device) and operational trials undertaken by other parties as a way of researching best-practice solutions.  Some trials have been completed (and, if necessary to the process, officially approved), while others are currently active (that is, still in the proposal or evaluation stages).

Currently active trials

  • Paired cycle priority / zebra crossing

    The Traffic Control Devices Rule section 11.4(5) states: “When a cycle path crosses a roadway, a road controlling authority may, as appropriate, control either the movement of cycles along the cycle path or traffic along the roadway by means of stop or give-way signs or by the installation of traffic signals, in the same manner as described in section 10.5 for an intersection.”

    In accordance with this, Christchurch City Council started an operational trial of a paired cycle priority / zebra crossing.  This involves a zebra crossing with an adjacent green-surfaced cycle crossing on a platform. Approaching traffic faces give way controls, with a new supplementary plate “to pedestrians and cyclists” to make the nature of the give way requirement clear.  A general information sign “watch for traffic” was also gazetted, to be used in situations where cyclists may ride onto the crossing without approaching motorists having enough time to stop safely.  This style was agreed upon by the Active Modes Infrastructure Group and approved for use at a specific location, and later extended to any suitable sites throughout the country.

     

    This is an operational trial, without a formal evaluation process; the sites where this treatment is installed are to be monitored by the relevant Road Controlling Authorities, with reporting to the Active Modes Infrastructure Group. Updated content on the Cycling Network Guidance will be available soon.

    The Deans Avenue paired cycle priority / zebra crossing appears in a recent cycling safety promotional video produced by Christchurch City Council.

     

    Close Back to top
  • Directional cycle signals

    A formal Traffic Control Device trial of directional cycle signals has been approved for four locations; two in Christchurch and two in Auckland.  

    Directional cycle signals incorporate an arrow with the cycle symbol within the signal.  This enables separate control of multiple cycle movements from one approach.  It is particularly useful to provide for a diagonal or right turn cycle movement during different phases to the straight through and left turn movements.

     

    The evaluation process is most concerned with how cyclists and motorists interpret the signals, and the conflicts that result from any non-compliant behaviours.  More information about the trial parameters and time-frame is contained in the directional cycle signals trial gazette notice(external link).

    Close Back to top

Recently completed trials

  • Driveway treatment (2016)

    An operational trial of a series of treatments at a 2-way cycleway crossing a commercial driveway in Wellington was undertaken in 2016.  The stages of treatment were:

    1. Blocks of green colouring (creating allusions to a zebra crossing) with cycle logos and directional arrows (in both directions of cycle travel) across the conflict area.

    2. Speed hump and limit line set back from the cycleway.

    3. Speed hump brought forward to edge of the cycleway.

    4. Flashing studs along cycleway activated by advanced bicycle detectors.

    A conflict study was undertaken to identify the “near misses” that occurred with the various treatments.  It was found that all treatments, especially the latter 3, significantly reduced the rate of near misses compared with the baseline case.   The treatments reduced the occurrence of vehicles stopping and waiting in the cycleway, particularly when the speed hump was on the edge of the cycleway.  The introduction of the painted markings (i.e. first stage of treatment) also improved safety by influencing cyclists to approach the site more slowly; the average cyclist approach speed reduced from 27.5 km/h to 22.0 km/h. 

    From the initial assessment, it was concluded that the painted marking treatment was a cost-effective option in reducing conflict between motorists and cyclists at driveways; and that this was further reinforced with the speed hump. 

    The trial has been completed, and a new guidance note produced.

    Close Back to top
  • Passing distance advisory signs and 2-1 lane markings (2016)

    The NZ Transport Agency Research Report 589 outlines two techniques formally trialled with the aim of achieving cost-effective safety improvements for people who cycle on rural roads in New Zealand:

    1. Advisory signs on passing distance

    2. A 2-1 (“two minus one”) lane layout, where two opposing vehicle lanes are converted to a single vehicle lane with cycle lanes on either side; when vehicles are present in both directions they are expected to give way to cyclists then utilise the cycle lanes to pass each other. This was accompanied by a 60 ;km/h posted speed limit. ;While the layout appeared to be intuitive to most users, public complaints led to this treatment being discontinued after the initial 24-hour period.

    An instrumented bicycle was used to gauge three key performance measures; motor vehicle approach speed, passing distance, and bicycle speed. ;Neither treatment had a significant effect compared with the baseline (i.e. before-treatment) situation for any of these three measures.

    Speeds of all motor vehicles passing through the site (i.e. not just when a bicycle was present) were also collected. ;This signage treatment resulted in a 2 ;km/h reduction in average speed. ;The 2-1 treatment resulted in a suitable decrease in average motor vehicle speeds during day-time hours (from 90 ;km/h to 62 ;km/h), however at night speeds were still higher than desirable (from 92 ;km/h to 81 ;km/h).

    The researchers’ recommendations are summarised below:

    1. Further 2-1 trials in the New Zealand context:

    • To be conducted in conjunction with robust threshold and midblock treatments, including more active speed management measures (particularly at night).
    • With complementary behaviour-based signage demonstrating correct user behaviour.
    • Comparison with similar, low-volume rural road designs with limited space (such as roads with no centre lines).

    2. Community consultation, communications and engagement strategy:

    • Including education about new road layouts, use and potential benefits.
    • The joint responsibility of the appropriate road controlling authorities and the research and evaluation team.
    • Obtain a high level of community buy-in before trials proceed to implementation.

    3. Advisory distance signs:

    • As part of a suite of measures.
    • Shown to lead to a (statistically) significant reduction in vehicle speed.

    4. Standardised advisory signs:

    • The NZ Transport Agency consider the development of a standardised advisory sign to encourage desirable overtaking behaviour when passing cyclists, and guidelines for its use to ensure consistency across the national network.

    5. Baseline cyclist-driver data:

    • Obtain a robust baseline of how drivers and riders interact in different settings.
    Close Back to top
  • Shared path signage, Auckland Transport and Christchurch City Council (2015)

    Auckland Transport and Christchurch City Council are currently pursuing changes to the signage regulations for shared paths in locations where multiple exclusive cycle paths and footpaths merge to form short sections of shared path.  These locations, which would be more appropriately thought of as ‘areas’ rather than ‘paths’ due to their complexity, exist because it would not be suitable to provide segregated facilities where multiple directions of travel are possible.  The current signage regulations result in such locations being cluttered with regulatory signs; it is assumed that this is neither effective in portraying the signs’ intended messages, nor necessary from a safety perspective, nor appropriate from an urban design perspective.

    The gazette notice to evaluate whether the use of pavement markings only, instead of signs and markings currently required by legislation, outlines the trial parameters:
    Gazette notice: Cycle path and shared path markings trial(external link)

    The evaluations have been completed and submitted to the Transport Agency for the official approval.

    Close Back to top
  • Buffered cycle lanes (2014)

    A trial of adding painted buffers between cycle lanes and parallel parking in Dunedin was undertaken in 2014. 

    It was found that reducing the width of the parking lane by adding the buffer improved parking discipline (i.e. people parked closer to the kerb). It was also found that as parking duration increases, parking discipline improves.  These findings are positive in terms of keeping vehicles away from the cycle lane, and protecting people on bikes from the vehicle “dooring” zone.

    However, the research found that adding the diagonal markings within the buffer resulted in an increase in the proportion of cyclists riding in the dooring zone.  The researchers acknowledged some problems with the implementation of the markings (inconsistencies between different trial sites) and recommended that a stronger delineation of the parking line be used.  More trials are required of buffer zone markings. At SH 6 (Matai St) in Nelson a different treatment is being tried that uses a cycle marking in an offset green box alongside an unpainted buffer.

    Close Back to top
  • Narrow separators on cycle lanes (2013)

    An operational trial of an on-road raised bicycle lane separator was undertaken in Christchurch (as part of a wider study for VicRoads). Separators were placed in two locations where motorists were commonly encroaching into exclusive bicycle lanes. Road user behaviour was observed before and after installation, and qualitative feedback was also sought from site users. The results show a significant effect on motor vehicle encroachments following installation, but only when separators were supplemented by vertical posts. Very positive feedback was also received from existing cyclists. Some recommendations for best practice guidance on the most appropriate treatment locations and layouts are also suggested.

    The full paper outlining the research findings is available on the RCA Forum website(external link).

    Close Back to top
  • Hook turn signs (2009)

    The new hook turn sign specification was developed in Christchurch because local authorities were finding that the hook turn box at the Colombo Street / Tuam Street intersection was not clearly visible to cyclists approaching the intersection, due to the crown of the road.  It also seemed that some cyclists did not understand what the hook turn box was for, or know intuitively how to perform a hook turn. 

    The arrows used on the sign are intended to show the manoeuvre to be made by cyclists, as the words “hook turn” would not be sufficient for those who do not understand the term.

    This was an operational trial (ie the full traffic control devices trial process was not required) which consisted of monitoring the device and reporting on its success to the Active Modes Infrastructure Group. It was found to be successful and is recommended for use in similar locations.

    Close Back to top

Rules changes

Cycling-related rules contained in the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 and the Traffic Control Devices Rule are subject to amendments over time.

Following on from recommendations in the Cycling Safety Panel report of late 2014, Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency developed a Cycling safety action plan: making cycling safer and more attractive [PDF, 418 KB].

This committed Waka Kotahi to investigation of many rules changes, to be followed by the formal legislation change process, where appropriate. A 3-4 year programme of cycling rules work was developed, which was split into three packages.

The first package passed in 2016, included minor changes, such as allowing vehicles to pass over a flush median while overtaking people cycling, bicycle lights performance and the approval of sharrow road markings.

Packages two and three were consulted on as part of the Accessible Streets package in early 2020. These included:

As of late 2020, these changes had not yet been adopted.  

Some rules-related issues will be addressed through non-regulatory solutions (such as clarification in the road code).

The following straightforward rule changes have also been passed:

 

  • Guidance on the use of roadway art (2020)

    Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices Amendment 2020(external link)

    The following amendment allows for the installation of roadway art on a roadway as long as it meets the requirements of the rule. 

    5.6 Requirements for roadway art

    5.6(1) Despite anything in 5.4, a road controlling authority may install any marking on a roadway (roadway art) if the roadway art:

    (a) is installed in a lower risk environment; and
    (b) does not resemble and is not similar to a marking described in this Rule; and
    (c) does not mislead road users about the meaning of any traffic control device; and
    (d) is not part of or visually integrated into a marking specified in Schedule 2.

    5.6(2) In this Rule, lower risk environment means an area—

    (a) where the road controlling authority manages speeds, through the use of any combination of traffic control devices, roadside developments, roadway art and other changes in the road environment, with the aim to achieve an outcome where the operating speed of vehicles (except in emergency situations) is not more than 30km/h (whether or not the speed limit for the area is 30km/h); and
    (b) in relation to which it is reasonable for the road controlling authority to believe that outcome has been or will be achieved.

    For more guidance about the use of roadway art, contact InnovatingStreets@nzta.govt.nz

    As part of the new rule, Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency has powers to require a road controlling authority to remove any marking from a roadway for non-compliance of the rule.

    Close Back to top
  • Omnibus Rules updates (2019)

    Land Transport (Road User) Amendment Rule 2019 [PDF, 385 KB]

    This rule amends the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 (the principal rule). The principal rule establishes the rules under which traffic operates on roads.

    The objective of the amendment included —

      • Amend the definition of headlamp, as it applies to cycles, to align with a change made in 2016 to the equivalent definition in Land Transport Rule: Vehicle Lighting 2004.  This change means that a cycle headlamp must be visible when it is switched on from a distance of 200 m, which was previously only 100 m.
      • Clarify that “B” and “T” traffic signals apply only to vehicles that are using the special lane that faces the signal.

    Traffic Control Devices Amendment 2019(external link)

    Changes to the Part 1 Requirements, Clauses 11.4(1) and 11.4(2). This change enables road controlling authorities to identify shared paths with markings only, where appropriate. This provides an improvement on the previous requirement for signs, which are often a source of clutter in an urban environment and less effective than markings to identify the use of shared paths. 

    2.5 Clause 11.4 amended (Facilities for cycles, wheeled recreational devices and mobility devices)

    2.5(1) Replace clause 11.4(1) with:

    11.4(1) For a shared path used by cycles, a road controlling authority—
    (a) must install appropriate signs or markings that comply with Schedule 1 or Schedule 2, defining the class or classes of path user—
         (i) at the start of the shared path; and
         (ii) after each roadway or any other pathway with which it intersects; and
    (b) must install signs or markings advising users that the shared path ends, unless signs or markings are installed to advise who may use any path that continues beyond the end of the shared path; and
    (c) may install signs or markings at other intervals along the shared path.

    2.5(2) Replace clause 11.4(2) with:

    11.4(2) If pedestrians, cycles, wheeled recreational devices, or mobility devices are restricted to a specific side or part of a path, or where the path is separated for users travelling in different directions, a road controlling authority—
    (a) must install signs or markings indicating the nature of the restriction—
         (i) at the start of the restricted section of path; and
         (ii) after each roadway or any other pathway with which it intersects; and
    (b) must install signs or markings advising users that the restriction ends, unless signs or markings are installed to advise of any restriction or who may use any path that continues beyond the end of the restricted or separated section of path; and
    (c) may install signs or markings at other intervals along the restricted section of the path.

    In addition to the rule, please refer to the following guidance:
    Best practice guidance note on using signs and markings to designate paths for pedestrians and cyclists

    Close Back to top