Ana Nicholls
From:
BUS: Assurance
Sent:
Thursday, 28 February 2019 8:47 AM
To:
'Withheld under section 7(2)(a)
Subject:
RE: Response letter
Morning Withheld
under section 7(2)(a)
Thank you for meeting me the other day.
As discussed, currently we are requesting information from 2 independent consultants to understand how they assess
traffic signal phases throughout New Zealand. Once we analyse the data, we will then provide you with our decision.
Your LGOIMA request regarding all correspondence will be provided as soon as possible, no later than 20 March 2019.
Will be in touch and enjoy your day.
Thanks
Ana
Ana Nicholls
Assurance Advisor | Wellington City Council
P +6444994444 |
M +6421940418 |
F E [email address] |
W Wellington.govt.nz |
|
The information contained in this email is privileged and confidential and intended for the addressee only.
If you are not the intended recipient, you are asked to respect that confidentiality and not disclose, copy or make use of its contents.
If received in error you are asked to destroy this email and contact the sender immediately. Your assistance is appreciated.
From: Withheld under section 7(2)(a)
Sent: Tuesday, 26 February 2019 2:29 PM
To: BUS: Assurance
Subject: Re: Response letter
Hi Ana,
Have arrived a touch early. At mojo now.
Cheers,
Withheld
under section 7(2)(a)
1
On Tue, 26 Feb 2019, 12:24 PM BUS: Assurance, <[email address]> wrote:
Hi Withheld
under section 7(2)(a)
I will meet you on Level 7 at the Mojo Café at 2.30pm today and then we can go up to Level 16.
See you soon.
Ana Nicholls
Assurance Advisor | Wellington City Council
P +6444994444 |
M +6421940418 |
F E [email address] |
W Wellington.govt.nz |
|
The information contained in this email is privileged and confidential and intended for the addressee only.
If you are not the intended recipient, you are asked to respect that confidentiality and not disclose, copy or make use of its contents.
If received in error you are asked to destroy this email and contact the sender immediately. Your assistance is appreciated.
From: Withheld under section 7(2)(a)
Sent: Tuesday, 26 February 2019 8:34 AM
To: BUS: Assurance
Subject: Re: Response letter
Hi Ana,
That time works for me. See you then
Cheers,
2
Withheld
under section 7(2)(a)
On Tue, 26 Feb 2019, 8:18 AM BUS: Assurance, <[email address]> wrote:
Morning Withheld
under section 7(2)(a)
Are you able to meet with me today? I can book us a room on Level 16 at 113 The Terrace at 2.30pm if this time works
for you?
Thanks
Ana
Ana Nicholls
Assurance Advisor | Wellington City Council
P +6444994444 |
M +6421940418 |
F E [email address] |
W Wellington.govt.nz |
|
The information contained in this email is privileged and confidential and intended for the addressee only.
If you are not the intended recipient, you are asked to respect that confidentiality and not disclose, copy or make use of its contents.
If received in error you are asked to destroy this email and contact the sender immediately. Your assistance is appreciated.
From: Withheld under section 7(2)(a)
Sent: Friday, 22 February 2019 9:18 PM
To: BUS: Assurance
Subject: Re: Response letter
Hi Ana,
I would be happy to meet to discuss. I'm reasonably flexible during the week.
3
Cheers,
Withheld
under section 7(2)(a)
On Fri, 22 Feb 2019, 1:49 PM BUS: Assurance, <[email address]> wrote:
Hi Withheld
under section 7(2)(a)
We had the meeting yesterday to discuss next steps into understanding your concerns about the way Council
currently assess all road users at intersections in regards to traffic signal timings.
I am drafting up a response letter to you, which I will shortly send.
I would also like to address one area of concern for me. In multiple emails you have mentioned the interaction
between yourself and Withheld under section at a m
7(2)(a)
eeting last year. I understand you are unhappy with how the meeting
unfolded and this is why I have asked to speak with you on the phone. To address this concern, are you happy for me
to call you or equally I am more than happy to meet with you?
Kind regards
Ana
Ana Nicholls
Assurance Advisor | Wellington City Council
P +6444994444 |
M +6421940418 |
F E [email address] |
W Wellington.govt.nz |
|
The information contained in this email is privileged and confidential and intended for the addressee only.
If you are not the intended recipient, you are asked to respect that confidentiality and not disclose, copy or make use of its contents.
If received in error you are asked to destroy this email and contact the sender immediately. Your assistance is appreciated.
4
From: Withheld under section 7(2)(a)
Sent: Wednesday, 20 February 2019 3:59 PM
To: BUS: Assurance; Justin Lester; Councillor Sarah Free
Subject: Re: Response letter
Hi, as I'm yet to have any decent response in over a week, I'm now cc'ing in Sarah Free.
Sarah, I'm now emailing you as the portfolio leader of cycling. Sorry for the lengthy email, but it has been a
long process. I've tried to summarise it as best I can.
Over the past several years, I've occasionally had experiences while cycling through intersections where I
enter on a green, then the light turns red while I'm travelling through, and other cars then get a green light
and come towards me while I'm still in the intersection. I've told the council about this, and no action has
been taken.
Recently I met with Withheld under section who I believe is in charg
7(2)(a)
e of planning the traffic light timing at WCC to
discuss this problem. I showed him some videos of it happening, to which he ignored and said there was no
issue. After talking a bit more, and showing the videos more, he finally agreed that there may be an issue,
but then said "we can't cater for minorities". To be clear here, minorities means "cyclists" to Withheld as I
under section 7(2)(a)
understood it. At that point I left the meeting in disgust, then Withheld chased m
under section 7(2)(a)
e through the council buildings
clearly unaware that what he said had caused offence.
Since then I have made requests under the LGOIMA about any policies that WCC had on cyclist speeds.
The official response was none. I also made requests about the traffic light timing and length of the Victoria
St/Karo Dr intersection, which I got a result back. As the WCC had no policies covering cyclist speeds, I
used the wikipedia pages average speed of 15km/h. I used this speed to show that if a cyclist entered that
particular intersection at 15km/h when the light was green, and the light turned orange/amber shortly after
the cyclist entered, then the lights would continue to change to red, then other vehicles get a green light. At
this point the cyclist would have made it only 75% of the distance of the intersection. I then told the council
this, as I thought that seemed like a valid safety concern backed up with facts.
The council came back and suddenly seemed to have policies on cyclist speeds, taken from the AUSTROAD
traffic engineering practical guide, which dictates that all light sequences should be programmed for a cyclist
travelling at at least 20km/h. They also defined the intersection I mentioned as a "mixed environment".
5
Personally, I find 20km/h quite fast, especially on an incline. I requested that the council ask their staff
whether they ever travel less than 20km/h (note that any speed less than that could mean that the cyclist has
opposing traffic gets a green light before they exit the intersection). The council declined that request as
substantial to collate. I also have suggested that the council may have details on the bike share ONZO which
I have personally ridden, and struggle to get 20km/h (very sweaty hard work).
I should note that the intersection I am discussing with the council was just purely an example, there are
plenty more around Wellington that have much more substantial inclines, and all of which are expecting
cyclists to travel 20km/h at minimum.
I then asked the Cycle Aware Wellington group whether anyone had had similar situations to myself, or
whether they ever cycled less than 20km/h, or
always travelled above it (which is the speed that the council
uses to determine safety). You can find the results of the poll
at https://www.facebook.com/groups/cawgtn/permalink/2198221406903992/ (I believe you have to have a
facebook account, but not necessarily join the group, but it is a good group). For clarity, majority of the
responses said they travelled
below 20km/h.
I then told the council, so they have a bit more of an idea of whether the designs of traffic signal timing is
indeed safe. They then finally came back to me what "mixed environment" means. From the Austroad
standard on cycling aspects, it means that cyclists have an operating speed of "< 20km/h"
Error! Filename not specified.
Now, at this point, I was quick to point out to the council that their assumption that cyclists travel
at least
20km/h is wrong, and is clearly backed up by the same standards they use. I have requested that they go and
fix the light sequences to be safe for all road users (ie, those minorities such as cyclists). This I would have
thought would be something the council would treat seriously, especially given all the promotion about
cycling around town and how safe and quick it is. Turns out the council's reaction to that was ... to simply
ignore me, and not do anything still. I have tried contacting the Mayor, but have had no response.
So Sarah, if you have made it this far, I thank you for your time. I understand that you are most likely busy. I
would like you to speak with your fellow councillors and discuss this, and the responses that I have been
given by the council. I believe you are the best suited for this as the portfolio leader of cycling. I look
forward to hearing back from you. I'm happy to discuss this via email, phone, or in person.
Cheers,
6
Withheld
under section 7(2)(a)
On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 at 09:23, Withheld under section 7(2)(a)
> wrote:
Hi Ana,
Any update on these discussions? I'm a bit confused why after I pointed out that WCC aren't actually
following the standards properly I get radio silence. I'll reiterate my concerns again:
I requested the intersection length and timing of a single intersection, and showed that travelling at 15km/h
a cyclist would only make it 75% of the way through if they entered on a green, before other vehicles get a
green light in opossing traffic flows.
The 15km/h was based on various sources on the internet from around the world. This was because WCC
officially said they had no speed policies for cyclists.
WCC then said they actually did have policies, under the austroad standards, where all cyclists are expected
to travel at minimum 20km/h. With this response I was given the jargon "mixed environment" which I did
not get told where that was defined for several weeks.
I then asked questions of WCC to make sure they were aware that not all cyclists actually travel over
20km/h. This included asking for any data notified to WCC, any cyclist speeds of WCC staff, and also any
speeds discovered while consulting with ONZO about the bike share programme they run. Most of this was
refused, or shown that WCC did not hold the data.
I then ran a facebook poll which showed that *the large majority* of responses (over a hundred) travelled
below 20km/h, and only 1/3 actually always travelled above 20km/h. This was told to the council.
At this stage, the council should have been thinking, mmm, maybe that austroad standard might not be as
safe as it could. I mean, maybe have a bit of buffer, just incase right...
7
Soon after I told the council of the facebook poll, I was then finally told what "mixed environment" meant.
This meant that cyclists travel
less than 20km/h. This is a gross contradiction to the councils assumption
that all cyclists travel
more than 20km/h. I'm sure anyone can see that you can't travel both less than, and
more than any speed ever. It is simply impossible, you have to choose one or the other. I would expect the
council to pick the safest option, and that happily aligns with the austroad standard for "mixed
environments".
After that, I simply get no meaningful responses, just that "discussions" are still taking place. Taking note
of your response at https://fyi.org.nz/request/9377-any-correspondence-relating-to-traffic-light-timing-
issues#comment-2700, this seems that there are simply no discussions going on, apart from filing a ticket
away in your system then letting it rot.
I will note, this is something that I have told the council about over
several years, and to date, the council
has made no effort to actually fix the problem. Even worse, I was verbally abused by one of the council's
staff and told that my safety doesn't matter because
I am a minority. Yes thats right, WCC do not care
about the safety of minorities. Is this the councils official view on the subject? I am guessing so, as that
staff member still works there, and I believe is still in charge of this very case where
absolutely
nothing has been done.
Come up everyone, lets just move forward, start putting an effort into cycling safety, instead of just
dismissing it as not a problem. I have proved to you that this is a meaningful problem, and has safety
concerns. I really really really hope that the council actually steps up and does something meaningful about
the safety of cyclists (especially given all those fancy billboards and posters you are putting up around the
city promoting cycling, I wonder what everyone will think if they knew that internally you have completely
the opposite opinion).
As for having a call, I'm more than happy to have a call if you have something to say other that "discussions
are happening". Perhaps if we set up a meeting with myself and the people having the discussions. I will
even be happy meeting with Withheld under section 7(2)(a)again at this stage if others are present. I'm extremely disappointed
how this has been dragged out so long. The council should surely just be able to admit that perhaps they
were wrong...
Cheers,
Withheld
under section 7(2)(a)
8
On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 at 08:45, BUS: Assurance <[email address]> wrote:
Morena Withheld
under section 7(2)(a)
As previously stated, the relevant teams are in discussions about the traffic signal timings in relation to cyclist
speed.
I will be in contact shortly to answer your concerns and if you would like to talk over the phone, I am happy to call
you.
Thanks
Ana
Ana Nicholls
Assurance Advisor | Wellington City Council
P +6444994444 |
M +6421940418 |
F E [email address] |
W Wellington.govt.nz |
|
The information contained in this email is privileged and confidential and intended for the addressee only.
If you are not the intended recipient, you are asked to respect that confidentiality and not disclose, copy or make use of its contents.
If received in error you are asked to destroy this email and contact the sender immediately. Your assistance is appreciated.
From: Withheld under section 7(2)(a)
Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2019 4:22 PM
To: BUS: Assurance; Justin Lester
Subject: Re: Response letter
Just another update. 115 people say they occasionally travel less than 20km/h, 13 people say they always
travel less than 20km/h, and 46 people say they always travel *above* 20km/h.
9
I really hope that this shows the council that there are a non negligible amount of people that travel at a
slower speed than 20km/h. As discussed before, this means that there are plenty of intersections that would
mean that the cyclist can enter on a green, and still be inside the intersection when the "all-red" phase
ends, and other vehicles have a green light to enter the intersection. This is utterly unsafe, as it is
encouraging other vehicles to go into the intersection while a cyclist is still attempting to get across safely.
I will re-iterate. I'm incredibly upset at the councils attitude towards this. I have mentioned this many
times before, got told that I'm a minority that safety doesn't matter by a staff member in charge of
designing safe intersections. I then worked out how the intersection is not safe given the timings and
distances provided by the council. From that, I was told that the council would not do anything. I was told
the standard the council is following to design these intersections, but many of the references were left out.
After finally getting the appropriate references, I noted that the council is not implementing the standards
they follow correctly. Then I get radio silence, which I assume once again is the council refusing to do
anything to improve the safety standard.
The Victoria St/Karo Drive intersection is currently unsafe for cyclists. I would like to see the council fix
this ASAP. This fix should take into account of cyclists travelling below 20km/h (as it is defined as a
"mixed environment", which defines cycle speed as "< 20 km/h"). This fix could be done quite easily by
increasing the all-red time to adequately meet the needs of all road users so they can get across the
intersection fully without other vehicles coming towards them.
I should note, the council has repeatably pointed out that they are attempting to promote a cycle safe
culture. This discussion and actions from clearly show that this is not the case, and is most likely a
publicity stunt for the council's upcoming election which is utterly terrible. You were voted in to make a
difference to the people in Wellington Justin, not to just sit back and say you care and do absolutely
positively nothing. This is your chance to make a serious impact towards the safety. This is not a single
issue with myself as shown by the facebook comments (which has only been up a few days and already
has hundreds of interactions...).
Look forward to a response, from anyone. Please do not treat this as an LGOIMA request. I am not
requesting any information. I am making a complaint about safety concerns, backed up by real evidence. I
would expect a response as such, and actions to resolve the safety concern.
Cheers,
Withheld
under section 7(2)(a)
10
On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 at 09:26, Withheld under section 7(2)(a)
wrote:
Hi Ana,
Just to give an update on the results I've got via facebook
(https://www.facebook.com/groups/cawgtn/permalink/2198221406903992/), which again is information I
believe the council could have proactively got themselves. Would be interested in the councils comment
to my previous email as well and whether any action is now being taken.
100 people say that they travel below 20km/h at some point, or have entered an intersection on a green
and exited on a red while cars coming towards them.
12 people say that they *always* travel below 20km/h.
41 people say that they always travel *above* 20km/h.
In addition, some of the comments I would say would be beneficial for the council to read and
comprehend.
Many comments are relating to going uphill, that is the most common time people say they go
slow (makes sense).
A few mention that along Waterloo quay the intersections are very difficult for cyclists to go
through (and many opt for the pedestrian instead). This is because from a standstill, the lights turn
orange, then red far too quick for the cyclists to make it
(https://www.facebook.com/groups/cawgtn/permalink/2198221406903992/?comment_id=219823
4073569392&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R%2312%22%7D, https://www.faceb
ook.com/groups/cawgtn/permalink/2198221406903992/?comment_id=2198277726898360&com
ment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R6%22%7D, https://www.facebook.com/groups/cawgtn
/permalink/2198221406903992/?comment_id=2198655906860542&comment_tracking=%7B%2
2tn%22%3A%22R%22%7D)
Struggling to gain more than 20 km/h on an onzo
(https://www.facebook.com/groups/cawgtn/permalink/2198221406903992/?comment_id=219845
1553547644&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R0%22%7D,
https://www.facebook.com/groups/cawgtn/permalink/2198221406903992/?comment_id=2198262
036899929&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R9%22%7D)
People actively slow down for intersections due to more accidents happening there
(https://www.facebook.com/groups/cawgtn/permalink/2198221406903992/?comment_id=219851
8956874237&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R%22%7D)
One in particular that I thought was a really novel idea that is probably in that Austroad standard
somewhere. https://www.facebook.com/groups/cawgtn/permalink/2198221406903992/?comment_id=219
8665953526204&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R%22%7D
11
In Chch on one of the wide avenue crossings (made worse by being slightly on an angle) an additional set of detectors were
installed in the middle of the intersection, placed such that only a bike would trigger both. If a bike is detected still crossing
when the lights change, an extra long all-red phase is introduced before the next green starts. Quite clever as it only needs to
operate when needed, and no special knowledge is required by a rider to make it work. Worth trying in a few places?
If Chch can do it, why not Wellington? Have the council ever considered this?
Cheers,
Withheld
under section 7(2)(a)
On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 at 14:37, Withheld under section 7(2)(a)
:
Why thank you Withheld
under section 7(2)(a)
I've cc'd in the Mayor again, as I believe that this has been handled very poorly by the teams involved
(apart from the assurance team have been very good at dealing with my many emails), and there is an
extreme lack of safety culture at the council that should get resolved.
Can you confirm that the council is aware that the Victoria/Karo intersection is classed as a "Mixed
environment".
Can you also confirm that the council has explicitly only programmed the light sequence for cyclists
travelling at 20km/h or above?
Can you also confirm that the council is aware that in a "Mixed environment" that the "Cyclist operating
speed" is "< 20 km/h".
12
I would say given the above, the council can surely see that they are not following the standards they
claim to follow to the letter. Can this intersection please be fixed at the earliest possible time to ensure
the safety of cyclists travelling at speeds lower than 20 km/h.
Can the council then go and find any other intersection that has been termed "Mixed environment", and
ensure that the light timing is appropriate for cyclists travelling at speeds lower than 20 km/h.
I should note, the council really should have put all this data together themselves. I had reported this
many times over the years, included videos of it happening, requested the data, observed that it was
unsafe, gave concrete examples of how it was unsafe. The councils' reaction to this was ... to do nothing.
Now that we have gone back and forward for several months, I'm glad the council should now be able to
see the error of their calculations, and look forward to seeing the safety of cyclists improve drastically
throughout the city.
Cheers,
Withheld
Withheld
under
under
section
section
7(2)(a)
7(2)(a)
On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 at 14:21, BUS: Assurance <[email address]> wrote:
Hi Withheld
under section 7(2)(a)
It is on page 9 Table 2.3:
Bicycle network functions of the Cycling Aspects of Austroad Guides.
Ana Nicholls
Assurance Advisor | Wellington City Council
P +6444994444 |
M +6421940418 |
F E [email address] |
W Wellington.govt.nz |
|
The information contained in this email is privileged and confidential and intended for the addressee only.
If you are not the intended recipient, you are asked to respect that confidentiality and not disclose, copy or make use of its contents.
If received in error you are asked to destroy this email and contact the sender immediately. Your assistance is appreciated.
13
From: Withheld under section 7(2)(a)
Sent: Monday, 11 February 2019 2:18 PM
To: BUS: Assurance
Subject: Re: Response letter
Hi Withheld
under section 7(2)(a)
Thanks for that. Can I ask where that reference was? Or at least what the heading above "< 20 km/h"
is? Kinda seems like you should be taking into account speeds less than 20, which is kinda what I've
been saying all along.
Cheers,
Withheld
under section 7(2)(a)
On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 at 14:03, BUS: Assurance <[email address]> wrote:
Hi Withheld
under section 7(2)(a)
Error! Filename not specified.
The term ‘Mixed Environment’ is quite broad as details above. The key is that the facility is not separate from
other road users therefore you are correct in how you interpreted it . This is why Victoria Street would sit
within this category.
14
Thanks
Ana Nicholls
Assurance Advisor | Wellington City Council
P +6444994444 |
M +6421940418 |
F E [email address] |
W Wellington.govt.nz |
|
The information contained in this email is privileged and confidential and intended for the addressee only.
If you are not the intended recipient, you are asked to respect that confidentiality and not disclose, copy or make use of its contents.
If received in error you are asked to destroy this email and contact the sender immediately. Your assistance is appreciated.
From: Withheld under section 7(2)(a)
Sent: Monday, 11 February 2019 12:00 PM
To: Ana Nicholls
Subject: Re: Response letter
Hi Ana,
Thanks for that. What would make my request for council staff cycling less substantial? I was
imagining an email to all staff asking the question of whether they are a cyclist, and if they travel less
than 20km/h ever. You would get responses back either yes or no, which could be simply counted.
As mentioned above, I'm trying to get the council to realise that not all cyclists can maintain a speed of
over 20km/h, and would hope that the council cares about its staff members (so would hopefully make
the intersections safe for them, if not for Wellington residents). If you could help me with my request
to get *some* data of council staff members travelling slower than 20km/h on a bicycle then that
would be great. Otherwise if that is not possible, my next plan is to ask for a list of staff members who
cycle, then a follow up request asking for a subset of those staff members whether they cycle at less
than 20km/h ever.
Also, I'm very glad that the council is now discussing possibilities of slower cyclists. From the
responses before today, it seemed as if the council had made its mind up to ignore any cyclists that
15
can't travel at minimum 20km/h. I would be interested in being kept in the loop for these discussions
(ie, whether the council is sticking with the 20km/h minimum and any reasons for that, or whether
they are considering fixing the traffic light timing).
Cheers,
Withheld
under section 7(2)(a)
On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 at 11:43, Ana Nicholls <[email address]> wrote:
Hi Withheld
under section 7(2)(a)
I have forward on your concerns and points about the maximum speed of 15km/h for the onzo bikes and how
we are assessing some intersections based on a cyclist speed of 20km/h. I agree that there are different types
of cyclists with different speeds that we need to consider.
The relevant teams are going to be meeting to discuss this and I have asked to be kept in the loop so I am
able to report back to you.
As for your request to ask all Council staff if they are cyclists and travel less than 20km/h – I will have to
decline under section 17(b)as this information does not exist. This would involve substantial time to retrieve
and collate the data.
I have asked the Team about what ‘Mixed Environment’ refers to again to make sure that I understand it
correctly and will get back to you.
I will be in touch.
Cheers
Ana Nicholls
16
Assurance Advisor | Wellington City Council
P +6444994444 |
M +6421940418 |
F E [email address] |
W Wellington.govt.nz |
|
The information contained in this email is privileged and confidential and intended for the addressee only.
If you are not the intended recipient, you are asked to respect that confidentiality and not disclose, copy or make use of its contents.
If received in error you are asked to destroy this email and contact the sender immediately. Your assistance is appreciated.
From: Withheld under section 7(2)(a)
Sent: Monday, 11 February 2019 11:19 AM
To: Ana Nicholls
Subject: Re: Response letter
Hi Withheld
under section 7(2)(a)
Have you had a chance to process my remarks about the internal correspondence (verbal), the
evidence of bikes going less than 20kmph, the onzo details. Also an acknowledgement that the
request for all WCC staff member bicycle speeds would be good just so I can keep track of it.
Cheers,
Hugh
On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 at 08:27, Ana Nicholls <[email address]> wrote:
Morena Withheld
under section 7(2)(a)
Thank you for sharing what you want to achieve. This helps a lot.
I am on a course today and will address you questions and request when I am back in the office
tomorrow.
17
Thanks
Ana
Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.
-------- Original message --------
From: Withheld under section 7(2)(a)
Date: 5/02/19 5:18 PM (GMT+12:00)
To: Ana Nicholls <[email address]>
Subject: Re: Response letter
Oh and just realised you didn't mention onzo speeds in your response. A prime example of bikes that
*struggle* to get to 20km/h, and that sort of bike share scheme was not present back when austroads
was developed.
On Tue, 5 Feb 2019, 4:47 PM Withheld under section 7(2)(a)
Withheld under section 7(2)(a)
wrote:
Thanks for that Ana, outlines a lot.
As for my angle. I am all for cycle safety. I have brought up concerns about entering on a green and
getting bombarded with cars coming towards me in the past, which I now know is because I travel
less than 20km/h sometimes (up hill, after exercise, night time when less visibility, traffic, all sorts
of things factor into my decision to travel at slower speeds in order to increase my safety). I am fully
aware that if a light turns orange then I should stop, and I like to think I'm one of the good cyclists
that actually does that (I see many that don't, or even run through a red). I'm more interested in the
case where a cyclist enters on a green and gets caught out. We have narrowed that down to because
you use the Austroads standard which appears to have a blanket rule of 20km/h for cyclists.
As for comments on your requests:
* Twice you have referred to a "mixed environment", but I haven't found that in any of the
references you've provided (or online in other austroad documents). I'm assuming it is because there
are both cars and cyclists involved and no cycle lane at that point. If this is correct then we can call
that finished.
* You also originally referred to the incline being taken into account for the all red timing. From
the austroad reference you provided last time, it appears that the incline is only taken into account
for the yellow/amber timing, not for the all red timing, and not specifically for cyclists. Can you
confirm that incline is not taken into account for cyclists during the all-red timing, and that all
cyclists are assumed to travel at 20km/h no matter what the incline.
In the email, paragraph "Between the time you sent your email on 10 January – 11 January all the
internal discussions have been verbal."
I request this information, and have requested this information originally as "internal
correspondence", and I would regard that as information as held by the agency under s 2(4) of
LGOIMA.
As for the paragraph started "In response to your request to have any evidence of any cyclists
travelling at the speed
lower than 20km/h on any intersection without the Council’s control".
18
I would have thought the evidence I've provided over the years (showing screenshots with speed
information on them, or actual videos which you can gauge timing information) would have fallen
under that. I had a feeling that other cyclists may have been caught out similar to myself, so any
reference to cyclists entering on a green and exiting on a red would also fall under that (by definition
they are not travelling 20km/h, otherwise they would exit before red). If no other cyclists have
reported any of that, then we can leave it with that, though I would hope that the council takes it on
board that at least one person travels slower than 20km/h, which could indicate that more do as well.
As for the paragraph started "To answer your question about any submissions from public and
internal employees
regarding cyclist speeds under 20km/h, in order to collate this information we would have
to go through each submission individually."
Can we limit this to just council staff. This can be done with minimal time via an all staff email
asking for responses on whether they are a cyclist, and if so whether they ever travel slower than
20km/h. Note that this information should be deemed to be held as per s 2(4) of LGOIMA.
The point I am trying to make here is that it is possible for cyclists to travel less than 20km/h, and
maybe the standard you use could be wrong. I understand it is a national standard, but it was also
designed a long time ago, before cycling was such a big culture. Now all sorts of cyclists ride on
roads, including children (seen via personal experience, and many photos of the island bay cycle
way debarkle), elderly (ditto), and just plain unfit (I've been caught behind them sometimes, and
sometimes I am one of those people, and what better way to get fit than cycle!). I am hoping from
this continual pressure to the council that they might put a tiny amount of resource into researching
this, deciding for themselves that 20km/h is either perfectly fine (absolutely no cyclists travel less
than 20km/h), or it might need changing (council could use their own policy, or push back to the
national standard providing them with research).
In terms of the other intersection I requested timing for (and heavy vehicle stopping time) at the
Willis/Chews intersection. You may have noticed that there was an article in the paper today
(https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/110350912/bus-drivers-running-red-lights-attract-almost-200-
complaints-in-a-year) about buses running red lights. Some top comments on that was that the
orange light was too short for the buses to safely stop in time. I understand that you have probably
designed that intersection (and others in the area) for the speed limit of 30km/h, however, when a
bus has standing passengers they have to reduce their stopping time to ensure passenger safety and
comfort. In the austroads references I've read on traffic signal timings, there was no indication that
this is taken into account.
I hope that makes sense, and you can acknowledge my clarifications on the gathering of cycle speeds
under 20km/h.
Cheers,
Withheld
under section 7(2)(a)
On Tue, 5 Feb 2019 at 15:37, Ana Nicholls
<[email address]<mailto:[email address]>> wrote:
Kia ora Withheld under section 7(2)(a)
Attached is your response which addresses multiple requests and the concerns you have raised
regarding cycle speeds and traffic light timings.
19
Between the time you sent your email on 10 January – 11 January all the internal discussions have
been verbal.
I have worked with multiple Council networks to collate this data and I am comfortable with
Councils decision. I have asked if I could call you to talk to understand what you want to achieve
and I am still happy to do this. It will help with understanding your why and can better help provide
what you need.
Please let me know when you are available.
Cheers
Ana
Ana Nicholls
Assurance Advisor | Wellington City Council
P +6444994444 | M +6421940418 | F
E [email address]<mailto:[email address]> | W
Wellington.govt.nz<http://wellington.govt.nz/> | [Facebook]
<https://www.facebook.com/wellingtoncitycouncil> | [Twitter] <http://twitter.com/wgtncc>
The information contained in this email is privileged and confidential and intended for the addressee
only.
If you are not the intended recipient, you are asked to respect that confidentiality and not disclose,
copy or make use of its contents.
If received in error you are asked to destroy this email and contact the sender immediately. Your
20
