here’s an editorial, not the actual article.

I’m not a lawyer, so the above could be incorrect. What I do know is that dutch roading layout keeps cyclists and cars/buses/trucks out of eachothers’ way where speed difference or traffic density is a factor, but most importantly (I think): Dutch motorists are *much* more aware of cyclists and pedestrians. This awareness is hammered into your brain when you take (compulsory) driving lessons. This awareness is probably also greatly improved because so many people are cycling. There’s just no way you can “forget” about cyclists, because they are everywhere. Finally, almost all dutch drivers are also cyclists, so they know what it’s like to be in traffic on a bicycle.

What is noticeable in the Netherlands is that virtually nobody wears a cycle helmet over there, yet (in the older traditional centres of den Haag, Amsterdam, Delft etc anyway) there is a very low incidence of cycle accidents. I’ve heard that is because under Dutch law, in an accident between a car and a cyclist, the car driver is always held responsible. Is that correct?

Coming from the Netherlands, I am used to CBDs where cars are either banned or drive very slowly and share the roads with pedestrians and cyclists. This works very well. Pedestrian and cyclist density is usually so high that cars can’t go any faster anyway. It makes for a very lively scene, with enough space for alfresco eating and drinking, market stalls, etcetera (see my old home town Utrecht for example: http://tinyurl.com/m46w8q)

The 5km/h is a technicality I think. The famous dutch “woonerf”, a residential area where pedestrians and cyclists (and playing children) have priority over cars, the speed limit for cars is 5km/h, but legally this means “at walking pace” – court cases in Europe have shown that this *could* (depending on circumstance) be anything up to 15km/h if I remember correctly.

The answer is simply for car parking. But for the car parks on Manners St and Cuba St it wouldn’t need to be open. They don’t feel up to saying the bus route will be bus-only, and the car parks will be removed. Shame, because I think it makes it less viable, and the bus-only route has to come eventually, so what happens to lower cuba at that time? No more through traffic it must be turned into a cul-de-sac for car parking. So is that an expensive future rebuild of the mall or is it planned for somehow?

But I can’t see why you’d want to allow cars through, even at walking pace. It is a route between Wakefield and Manners Streets. At the Manners end, it intersects with the new bus-only section of Manners, and the pedestrian-only section of Cuba. That means that its ONLY use for vehicles is a way in and out of one small section of Manners Street. Taranaki Street is only a couple of hundred meters further along and allows exactly the same access.

Thinking about it, though, it is actually quite a logical thing to do – linking Ghuznee Street to the waterfront and Chew’s Lane, effectively. Also, with any luck, it will encourage development of what I believe has the potential to be the best little street in the city, Bond Street from Cuba to Victoria. It makes Civic Square and the Town Hall a destination, and makes the whole Civic area more accessible. It should also encourage development of the Michael Fowler car park.

I still can’t work out from the plans and statements and etc. what’s going to happen to Dixon Street though.

Sure – goods vehicles, couriers, perhaps even taxis. But I can’t see who would really need (or rather, want) to travel down this route at a snails pace. Oh, yes I can – try-hards in their souped-up jap import car with the stereo booming. Great.