Sunday, May 24, 2009

Greens support breaking traffic laws

After all, if a bunch of freeloaders can walk illegally on a motorway, and not face arrest, then you can start driving on bike lanes, in fact, why not do whatever you want on it?
The Greens endorsed it, so it's about time to see how many other traffic laws the Greens happily will let you break. Time I think for trucks to carry loads up to 62 tonnes on highways, as long as the truck can safely carry it. Speed as much as you like too. The Greens have decided it's better to break a law than propose a new one. The oath that Green MPs declared to uphold the law has slipped to one side when it comes to inciting people to break this one - odd for a party that is so keen on promoting new laws.
The message is clear:
1. If it's a motorway, fuck it, cyclists and walkers can use it (why is Auckland Harbour Bridge special?), screw what it does to the motorists paying to use it;
2. Who gives a shit who else your disrupt, like "a tanker carrying urgently needed oxygen to North Shore Hospital was stuck, until police organised a passage through".
3. If the Greens don't like the law, they don't introduce a bill into Parliament, you don't propose a change to traffic laws, you just tell people to break it.
Oh and if you think NZTA stuffed up, you might find it isn't legally empowered to exempt people from traffic rules - the fact it did so before for the Hikoi does not change that.
Let's be clear, I don't care either way if a walkway or cycleway is attached to the Auckland Harbour Bridge, as long as those who will use it pay for it. NZTA cannot authorise people to walk and cycle on a motorway, but it can remove motorway designation from the Auckland Harbour Bridge (but why do that?). However, this rather pathetic little protest is about people wanting to force you to pay for a facility for them to use - and not giving a damn about who they disrupt along the way.
Moreover, the party that wants to regulate, ban and compel so many things, suddenly thinks it's ok to break a rather straightforward law regarding safety. So wait for the day the Greens say it's ok to trespass on railway bridges and tunnels, and say that "the trains should have to wait for me".


Canterbury Atheists said...

Gidday there,

Last time I had the misfortune to be stuck on The North Shore, I was shocked at the traffic congestion, and what motorists put up with on a daily basis.

At the time I passed the comment “I could bike to work faster than this”.

You travel overseas more than I do, and you have seen the way cycle-ways in Germany etc are integrated into any urban transport plan – but, never here in New Zealand?

The lack of provision of cycling/pedestrian access onto the bridge, is an historic oversight, which needs to be addressed, now not in 30 years (the projected time put forward)

When it was built the users paid a toll, so perhaps a toll for cyclists is the fairest way to address the issue of balance?

Don’t blame the cyclists for the abysmal legacy of road-planning in New Zealand, they are the aggrieved party, and more cyclists would mean an easier run in to town for car-lovers!

It’s a win/win for both parties.



B.S. said...

Water cannons not available ? Or tear gas perhaps ? Maybe if the ring leaders including the Ginga Whinga had been tazered the rest may well have fucked off back to their feral holes.

Greens happy to tell our kids what to eat but not happy top be told to follow the traffic safety laws. Wankers.

Sus said...

Hi Paul .. "aggrieved party" indeed.

According to a radio source today, the vocal cyclists in Sunday's bridge jaunt were from CAA, Cycle Action Auckland, who are also members of CAN, Cyclist Advocates' Network, and most of whom are central planners. Well, knock me down with a three-speed.

As a motorist I have no trouble with cycle lanes -- it's just that they also want me to pay for them.

A toll for cyclists? Sacrilege! They'd crucify you ... :)