by frog
Jeanette announced the Greens’ transport policy – ‘Smart Moves’ yesterday at one of Wellington’s Car Free Day events. She noted that the key elements of the policy were ‘more choices for commuters and protection from prices at the petrol pump.’
Here’s the problem:
This year we are spending just under $2 billion on roading work, and only $337 million on public transport infrastructure and services combined. Even if you add in money spent on cycling and walking facilities and on travel demand management and community programmes like walking school buses and work place travel plans, that’s still only 20 cents for every dollar spent on roads.
And here’s Jeanette’s solution:
The Greens will progressively increase the proportion of the Fund spent on public transport, walking and cycling facilities and community travel demand programmes from one third in our first year in government to two thirds five years later. So from 5:1 now it will go to 2:1 in our first year and 1:2 five years later.
That would mean in the first year, slightly more than doubling the funding for alternatives to roads, while maintaining the whole current budget for maintaining and renewing roads and a sizeable chunk of funding for new road projects that are already underway. Over the following five years building new motorways would take lower priority to completing public transport systems and cycling and walking networks.
If you read the whole speech you’ll see she also has a ‘how will we pay for it’ section.
We believe this is the most comprehensive programme ever put forward in New Zealand to protect the travelling public from high prices at the pump and congestion when they travel to work. It will significantly reduce our climate change emissions and prepare us to cope with much more expensive and scarce oil in the future.
Key elements of the policy include:
- Introduce $1 ‘anywhere for 2 hours’ off-peak fares on all public transport.
- Create cheaper day, week and month passes for public transport, usable on all services, with a 50% discount for children, beneficiaries and students.
- Shift responsibility for funding walking, cycling and public transport from councils to government, creating more choice without more rates.
- Reduce urban speed limits and give cyclists and pedestrians better legal protection.
It’s another very detailed policy document from the Greens’ policy team which also includes existing transport plans for both Auckland and Wellington cities. But of course you can’t stop some people hearing what they want to hear. Or others who will claim they are also sustainable and are going to do much the same thing, they just haven’t quite got to around to it yet.
Published in Campaign | Environment & Resource Management by frog on Mon, September 22nd, 2008
Tags: Auckland, car free day, cars, Jeanette Fitzsimons, public transport, transport, wellington
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
>>$1 ‘anywhere for 2 hours’ off-peak fares
Why $1? What if it costs $4 to provide that service? Who foots the bill for the rest? (as if I couldn’t guess)
>>prepare us to cope with much more expensive and scarce oil in the future.
Groan. Cars do not require oil. When will you grasp this simple concept?
Cognitive dissonance, perhaps?
>>We will create a legal presumption that, so long as a cyclist or pedestrian is observing all road rules and common courtesy, in a collision with a vehicle the motorist will be held responsible.
This is simply too ridiculous for words. So, no due process, then?
>>We will legislate immediately for average fuel economy standards for all vehicles coming into the country, new and used. This gives importers the flexibility to import a range of vehicles as long as they meet their average.
Good grief. Best start with those BMWs you’re riding round in, eh….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Neither Jeanette nor any other Green MP has a BMW. In fact they protested about their purchase at the time.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Am I reading this correctly? Any vehicle that doesn’t meet an average fuel economy standard (presumably across the entire fleet) can’t be imported?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The faith based initiative continues – subsidise people who want to ride on buses, which encourages public transport use competing with cycling and walking (there is a direct relationship). $1 off peak public transport fares will do next to nothing to address congestion, but is a transfer from taxpayers who don’t ride to those who do.
However the most banal parts of the policy are:
- shifting transport funding cash which comes from road user taxes (why that is ignored is beyond me) to public transport from road construction and maintenance. 2/3rds to PT/walking and cycling will compromise road maintenance resulting in rutting and potholing and see minor safety works on roads ceasing, along with many near empty buses and trains transporting air; and
- removing any responsibility from local government to raise some public transport subsidy cash from ratepayers, destroying accountability for spending that money.
The reason state highways get 100% funding from the NLTF is because central government can easily hold itself responsible for monitoring performance, and because state highways generate more than enough road tax revenue to pay for themselves. Public transport AND local roads get between 40-85% funding from the NLTF to ensure SOME local accountability and thought by local government in spending tax money it has no responsibility to raise – and because the benefits are almost exclusively localised. State highways are roads of national strategic importance.
The idea that motorists have strict liability when there are collisions with pedestrians and cyclists, as long as the latter have acted legally is curious in an ACC environment (when there is no right to sue anyway), but nightmarish when the consequences are thought through. The child darting into traffic unexpectedly may not have “broken the law”, but the motorists hitting him or her will be? Nice – but then again did the Greens support the illegal protest bike ride over the Auckland Harbour Bridge of the Northern Motorway, or is obeying the law something only motorists are meant to do?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BP– off peak services run at a loss anyway, if you increase off peak patronage you reduce the per capita subsidy. By reducing the fare we encourage peak spreading and quite possibly reduce the loss that off peak services make. There’s transport economics equation you can use to help calculate how much you earn/lose by reducing fares, it all depends on how many trips you generate by reducing the fare.
But anyway there’s nothing wrong with cross-subsidising off peak and low demand routes with the profits you earn on peak and high demand services. That’s an excellent way to provide a complete transportation network without making a loss. And not too different in principle than the situation we have currently with roads, where taxpayers all over NZ subsidise the ridiculous and expensive capacity increases in an effort to stave off peak hour vehicle congestion in Auckland and Wellington. Only with PT, we actually help the economy, increase land availability, and help reduce the taxpayer’s kyoto burden.
The light rail in Dublin offered cut rate frequent off-peak services and patronage is far higher than anyone expected. It made a profit after the first year, and that doesn’t count all the external social, environmental and economic benefits to the city.
“Groan. Cars do not require oil. When will you grasp this simple concept?
Cognitive dissonance, perhaps? ”
Groan. Alternative fuel/electric cars still take up as much space as fossil-fuelled ones. When will you grasp this simple concept?? In urban areas land is very valuable. Cars are not an efficient means for 1 to 2 people to travel 2-6km in urban areas at peak hours and then park for 8 hours. If parking were efficiently priced, the demand for PT would skyrocket AND land in city centres would become more affordable.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BP –
Cars most definitely require oil, as well as petrol/diesel – just ask your mechanic (or read the bill carefully) next time you have your car serviced.
All those moving parts only move because of lubrication by oil!
Toad -
Please pass my thanks on to Jeanette, Gareth & the team, this was the most fun I’ve had on my bike in a long time!
Go Green policy launch stunts
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
# BluePeter Says:
September 22nd, 2008 at 3:56 pm
>> We will create a legal presumption that, so long as a cyclist or pedestrian is observing all road rules and common courtesy, in a collision with a vehicle the motorist will be held responsible.
> This is simply too ridiculous for words. So, no due process, then?
a ‘legal presumption’ does not mean no due process. It means that, once those facts have been established, the onus is then on the driver to prove that he/she was not careless, rather than the onus being on the cyclist or pedestrian to prove that the driver was negligent.
>>We will legislate immediately for average fuel economy standards for all vehicles coming into the country, new and used. This gives importers the flexibility to import a range of vehicles as long as they meet their average.
> Good grief. Best start with those BMWs you’re riding round in, eh….
what BMWs?
>Am I reading this correctly? Any vehicle that doesn’t meet an average fuel economy standard (presumably across the entire fleet) can’t be imported?
I doubt it. I expect they’re recommending the same system of fuel-efficiency standards that is already used in most OECD countries, which means that the average fuel efficiency of all the cars the company sells has to meet a certain standard, but they can sell cars that have higher fuel consumption provided they are balanced off by a sufficient number of cars with lower fuel consumption.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
katie
Cute. Electric cars do not require oil to run. The little required for lubrication and production of the vehicle is a non-issue. The Greens can put their blinkers on for as long as they like, but cars, and roads, and roading projects, are here to stay.
>>Alternative fuel/electric cars still take up as much space as fossil-fuelled ones
So? We build the roads to accomodate them.
>>When will you grasp this simple concept??
I get it, but I’m not sure the Greens ever will. All vehicles require roads.
Cars are here to stay. Car usage will not decline, except where the alternatives are feasible. The alternatives are only feasible in certain areas, at certain times, for certain journeys.
>>Cars are not an efficient means for 1 to 2 people to travel 2-6km in urban areas at peak hours
Straw man. Never said they were.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BTW
I haven’t had an answer to my question:
“Any vehicle that doesn’t meet an average fuel economy standard (presumably across the entire fleet) can’t be imported?”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>> subsidise people who want to ride on buses
Putting aside ancillary benefits; given the cost of fueling a car, owning a car, servicing a car, maintaining roads, maintaining infrastructure in a sprawling city, land costs, land opportunity costs etc… does it really matter if it’s “subsidised” if proper urban planning and PT is more cost-effective in the long term?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>rather than the onus being on the cyclist or pedestrian to prove that the driver was negligent.
So you want to change how the law works to favour people you deem worthy? Hilarious.
Innocent until proven guilty.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>used in most OECD countries, which means that the average fuel efficiency of all the cars the company sells
So nothing would change, then. There are no car ranges specifically designed for the New Zealand market. Or do the Greens have something else in mind, given they have made it part of their policy?
You might catch out exotics. Once again, there is no way that is going to pass, and it wouldn’t make sense anyway, given few people drive exotics.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>> >>Cars are not an efficient means for 1 to 2 people to travel 2-6km in urban areas at peak hours
>>Straw man. Never said they were.
How so ?
The perceived need for more road is caused by peak hour traffic and “1 to 2 people to travel 2-6km in urban areas” is what make the majority of this traffic.
>>Groan. Cars do not require oil. When will you grasp this simple concept?
Cognitive dissonance, perhaps?
Come on, the nz car fleet is not going to be electric before a long time.
And making and transporting cars is very energy intensive and for still a long time it means burning fossil fuel.
And there is the land use issue that Julie talked about.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>The perceived need for more road is caused by peak hour traffic
I’m not arguing against PT. I’m saying it only makes sense in a very narrow range of circumstances. A car is appropriate for a far wider range of applications, hence the reason people use them and are prepared to pay for the roads. How much do cyclists pay to use the roads?
>>Come on, the nz car fleet is not going to be electric before a long time.
And oil is not going to be prohibitively expensive for a long time.
This policy is all religion. A logic-free zone. Not smart.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
katie,
Most lubricating oils these days are synthetic and not derived from crude oil
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_oil
Well at least the Greens have said where the money will come from but have they costed all the inititaves? The double tracking plus the 35 new passenger trainsets for Auckland will swallow up most of the 2 billion. Add to that electrification and you will be well over.
So will we see a breakdown of those expenditure figures?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Video here: http://nz.youtube.com/watch?v=_1sNLAcxKBI
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>And oil is not going to be prohibitively expensive for a long time.
It’s already prohibitively expensive for a lot of people
>> This policy is all religion. A logic-free zone. Not smart.
You probably see it that way because first of all you probably don’t agree with the goal that this policy wants to achieve.
How can we talk about the content and the logic of a policy, if we don’t share the same goal.
What would be the goal (not the content) of your transport policy ?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BluePeter said: [Public transport] only makes sense in a very narrow range of circumstances. A car is appropriate for a far wider range of applications, hence the reason people use them and are prepared to pay for the roads.
BP, that is because we a land transport sturcture that results in public transport options competing against each other, rather than complimenting each other.
Where I live in West Auckland, I can catch a train and a bus that very closely duplicate each other’s route from my suburb to central Auckland.
What would make sense is to have buses running in very local circuits, picking up people to get them to train stations within 10-15 minutes. Then the bus does the same circuit again – not trying to compete for passengers with the train – which is what happens at the moment.
It is all very simple really, but the free market ethos of unregulated competition means we still have public transport services competing with each other despite them both receiving Government subsidies.
They can’t get much dumber than this – not even National (although they would give us toll roads, which I suppose is dumber, becasue they mean only that wealthy people will get to work faster while low income people get to work slower).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Where I live in West Auckland, I can catch a train and a bus that very closely duplicate each other’s route from my suburb to central Auckland.”
I know someone who lives in Howick who takes the bus to Newmarket. Now, if you cut that service back to Panmure, that person would have to take the bus to Panmure, then head to Britomart, and then get onto a service heading for Newmarket. You are leaving too much margin for error; plus you have the transfer penalty as well. We should be aiming for a one transfer system – one where one transfer is acceptable, but where two or more should be minimised.
Furthermore, the Western and Northern bus routes can very easily be re-arranged for trunking, due to the bottlenecks presented by the New Lynn/Avondale area, and the Auckland Harbour Bridge. Such an approach cannot be easily done in the South, East and Central areas, as there are few bottlenecks, and there is a dispersion of workplaces that those people want to go to (CBD, Newmarket, Penrose, East Tamaki)
Of course, the other problem is that with overcrowding on several rail services, I would still want buses available just in case I am sick of travelling like a sardine into the City. Of course, out West where St. Christine Rose lives and ensures that her faithful voters get two seats in each set (and the newest sets too!) that doesn’t matter – out East and South, where we have to squeeze in more and more people, it does.
“What would make sense is to have buses running in very local circuits, picking up people to get them to train stations within 10-15 minutes. Then the bus does the same circuit again – not trying to compete for passengers with the train – which is what happens at the moment.”
It would make sense, once we have sufficient rolling stock to handle those extra passengers. It is virtually impossible to stuff a hundred extra passengers on Southern or Eastern Line services because of the level of overcrowding. Of course, out West, you don’t appreciate that.
“It is all very simple really, but the free market ethos of unregulated competition means we still have public transport services competing with each other despite them both receiving Government subsidies.”
In Tokyo, you have a free market public transport system, and you have complementary services. The problem isn’t the free market public transport system, it is the pathetic planning that comes from the ARC.
“Well at least the Greens have said where the money will come from but have they costed all the inititaves? The double tracking plus the 35 new passenger trainsets for Auckland will swallow up most of the 2 billion. Add to that electrification and you will be well over.”
I have to agree with that. In Brisbane, they are spending nearly A$10 billion on rail improvements over the next twenty years; we would probably have to spend at least $10 billion in Auckland to get things up to scratch. You will hardly get change for $2 billion once the CBD tunnel is constructed. Of course, you would also need to ensure that there is enough track capacity in that tunnel – a twin track tunnel will not be enough for Auckland’s future needs.
Also, one more thing, the links to the Auckland and Wellington pages are working, but the links within them to pdf files are not working. I would be very interested in seeing what is proposed.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>It’s already prohibitively expensive for a lot of people
Who, exactly? The poor? It will always be so.
I lived in the UK. Fuel in NZ is cheaper. The UK prices don’t stop people driving AND the UK has good PT systems. What does that suggest to you?
The PT, which I used, only makes sense for certain types of journeys. It requires a high population density. That fact will never change, especially in NZ, so PT will always be a niche answer, and car travel will be by far the dominant mode.
We therefore need to plan and budget with this fact in mind.
>>What would be the goal (not the content) of your transport policy
Your goal is religious. PT = good, car = bad.
That is total nonsense.
My policy would be to use the most appropriate transport system in a given situation. Work commutes in cities often suit PT. Encourage it. Plan for it. In most other circumstances, the car is the most appropriate form of transport. Encourage it. Plan for it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Can someone who had input into this policy answer my simple question:
“ny vehicle that doesn’t meet an average fuel economy standard (presumably across the entire fleet) can’t be imported?”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BP, drive a Hummer by any chance? Is there any reason anyone needs vehicles like that in NZ?
I agree there is a debate about where to draw the line, but surely we need to draw one? If someone has a genuine need for a specialist vehicle, then that should be allowed for.
Imagine if we were to apply the policy you advocate for cars to drugs!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Toad
“BP, drive a Hummer by any chance? Is there any reason anyone needs vehicles like that in NZ?”
Whenever I see a comment like that it sends shivers down my spine, while you will brush it off Toad as meaningless we all know that the next move is the banning of vehicles that the Green party decides we do not need in NZ.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Actually the answer to clean burning fuel efficient vehicles is blindingly obvious.
What a pity that those with some knowledge in this area are never consulted.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>BP, drive a Hummer by any chance?
No. Each to his own, but I dislike American vehicles, and I dislike SUVs. Poor handling and performance.
I have an M3 BMW. I might add that my baby remains garaged most of the time as my wife takes the train and I work from home. A tank of fuel lasts us a month.
>>but surely we need to draw one
Nope. If someone wants to pay the fuel bills, that’s their business, not yours.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BB, do you have knoledge in energy efficiency?
If so, I’m sure Jeanette would like to meet with you. But I suspect the credentials don’t meet the rhetoric.
And, I repeat the bit you didn’t address: “Imagine if we were to apply the policy you advocate for [importing] cars to drugs!”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The first thing I think of is, $1 for 2 hours, great, Christchurch to Timaru by bus for $1! 40 passengers, the bus company gets $40, pays the bus driver $15 per hour minimum, has $10 left over for diesel and all other costs…
This would take a horrendous subsidy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Toad
“BB, do you have knoledge in energy efficiency?”
I need to be clear here mate, that is NOT the claim that I made.
I said that the “answer to clean burning fuel efficient vehicles is blindingly obvious”
Knowledge is a relative thing Toad, what I do have is 25 years experience in a related industry and as a matter of fact I would be delighted to discuss this with Jeanette should she have the time.
One thing is for sure, we are not going to do anything about reducing the smog levels or pollutants emitted be vehicles if we continue with our current policy.
While I will remain a denier when it comes to Climate change I am very keen to avoid the increase of smog and air contaminants produced by vehicles.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
So carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide and methane are not “pollutants” in your scheme of things BB?
Pity, because I could have arranged a nice lunch for you with Jeanette.
But seems it is not to be, because she won’t be interested if you deny the science.
I will ask you again – which bit of quantum mechanics can you refute?
The scientific theory says it does happen, the experiments show it does happen. As far as I am concerned, the only debate is over how fast it is happening, and what else may be happening to mitigate it.
But, from the scientific theory of quantum mechanics, the greenhouse effect must happen of we pour carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide and methane into the atmosphere.
Albert Einstein spent the last 30 years of his life trying (because it did not fit his ideological position) to prove quantum mechanics was scientifically fallcious. And as brilliant a scientist he could not. And no-one has since.
We should trust in the science, rather than the skeptics.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Toad
The offer was genuine but it seems that you are not.
Unless one “believes” the whole climate change con then you are not interested in hearing about ways to improve the efficiency of our national fleet nor are you interested in ways to dramatically reduce the level of pollutants.
Just for the record Toad, I am not a socialist, I buy my own lunches, as I said the offer was made in good faith, its a pity that it could not be accepted in the same fashion.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BB, you stray into tangential issues again.
The crucial question I asked was “… which bit of quantum mechanics can you refute?”
That is the fundamental question that those who deny anthropogenic atmospheric warming need to answer – and to my knowledge, so far, none have.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Oh, BB, I forgot to mention that there is a Nobel Prize for Physics at stake.
To supersede quantum physics with an alternative and peer-review accepted theory of the behaviour and inter-relationship of matter and energy would likely be the greatest scientific advance in 80 years.
You up for it?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Distractions aside, I would like to know how you’re going to measure emissions for imports and what cars you intend to ban.
Also, what would you reaction be if the ProCar Party proposed the same thing, only the pedestrian/cyclist is presumed to be at fault, so long as the car displayed “common courtesy”?
They would be, quite rightly, derided as nutcases.
Yet you can’t see it in yourselves.
That’s religion for you.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Deniss said
Have you read the policy by any chance ?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BP, rather than blathering on and making a right fool of yourself, do the research. Here’s a good place to start.
http://www.transport.govt.nz/monthly-overview-of-crash-stats-june-200-1/
Looks like cars and truck’s cause more crashes, injuries and deaths as a % of the road toll, than the % number of journeys made by these modes.
About time that ALL road users’ rights were protected not just the dominant modes. This legislation is working well in EU countries to protect more vulnerable road users.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
fastbike,
Be nice if the policy was viewable. The links dont work!
Am deadly keen to see the costings, timeline for construction, annual maintenance costs funding, etc. stategies outlined in the policy.
What is with the $1 dollar trip. Heck why not free?
If the daily zone 1 fare in Melbourne is around the A$6.50 mark. Why is the NZL fare ($1) so low? How much is the subsidy? Where will the money come from to fund the subsidy?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
They seem to be working for me Gerrit. Which link is not working for you?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
fastbike
>>making a right fool of yourself
We have those who write Green policy to provide us with the jokes.
It matters not that cars tend to be in the wrong, the law works on a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. If that remains the case, then the policy is more hot air.
Now please explain how you intend to regulate the importation of cars, please cost out the subsidy, and explain how we’re going to keep up road maintence?
Or is this policy yet more empty marketing?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
fastbike, I was going off Frog’s comment “Introduce $1 ‘anywhere for 2 hours’ off-peak fares on all public transport.”, I could not find this in the actual policy document. I now see that it was in Jeanette’s speech, not the policy, and was only for within cities. But the point is still the same, you are still running a bus for 2 hours on $40, your fuel use may just be a bit lower in the city. The public cost of this policy will be enormous.
The Green policy to encourage more newer vehicles could also be an environmental and economic disaster. It completely ignores the emissions during production of the cars. Cars haven’t really improved in fuel economy (the main factor in emissions) that much since the 80s. If you recycle an 80s or 90s car your emissions while driving may be a fraction higher than with a new car, but your overall carbon footprint is most likely a lot lower, because you are recycling a car rather than having a new one made for you. This policy is completely misguided.
Furthermore it would be very expensive encouraging newer cars, I lived in Ireland for the past two years where they have such policies and the cost was atrocious, all these brand new cars everywhere breaking down left right and centre because the computers were failing, while my 1989 Nissan Micra plodded along faultlessly and while using LESS fuel than the majority of the new cars. Ridiculous.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“If the daily zone 1 fare in Melbourne is around the A$6.50 mark. Why is the NZL fare ($1) so low? How much is the subsidy? Where will the money come from to fund the subsidy?”
The daily zone 1 fare in Melbourne includes peak travel, and includes a very large area (to put it into Auckland perspective, a zone 1 here would be from New Lynn through to Otahuhu).
I can see the point of having lower off-peak fares, but why not have it as something like a $1 a stage, or even 50c a stage?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
john-ston: I think “$1 anywhere” is a nice slogan to attract voters, which is more important than practicality.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Do the greens intend to keep the free off peak travel for pensioners promised by NZ first to begin later this year?, or will they be required to pay $1 a rise like everyone else?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
There are two problems with the legal liability for the motorist who hits a cyclist or pedestrian who was observing all the road rules.
According to Derek Erasmus, Head of road policing in Canterbury, 45% of cyclists involved in injury crashes are deemed to be primarily at fault and 10% are deemed to be partially at fault. Thus only a minority of car drivers will be affected by the new law, and those drivers are already affected by the existing hierarchy of road rules:
The Land Transport Act 1998 (as amended to 2006) states:
s.2 Driver, in relation to a vehicle, includes the rider of the motor cycle or moped or bicycle; and drive has a corresponding meaning
s.7 Drivers not to be reckless or dangerous
(1) A person may not drive a motor vehicle, or cause a motor vehicle to be driven, recklessly.
(2) A person may not drive a motor vehicle, or cause a motor vehicle to be driven, at a speed or in a manner which, having regard to all the circumstances, is or might be dangerous to the public or to a person.
s.8 Drivers not to be careless or inconsiderate
A person may not drive a vehicle, or cause a vehicle to be driven, carelessly or without reasonable consideration for other persons
The Minister already has the power to make rules to:
s.153(a) Set out standards and requirements concerning road user behaviour, including standards and requirements concerning the conduct of drivers, pedestrians, and other persons using roads:
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1998/0110/latest/DLM433613.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
bp asks Am I reading this correctly? Any vehicle that doesn’t meet an average fuel economy standard (presumably across the entire fleet) can’t be imported?
The proposal is essentially the same as the USA CAFE. Importers and manufacturers pay a penalty for exceeding the CAFE mpg, averaged across all their sales.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
kevyn, the Green Party proposal re liability seems to mirror the existing law in the Netherlands. My understanding (from a Dutch friend) is that this law change, when it was introduced resulted ina signiifcant reduction in car-bike accidents as drivers became far more conscious of the potential risks to themselves and hence took greater care around cyclists.
I don’t know if this is a fair reflection of what has happened in the Netherlands – it’s only one person’s view.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Mr Dennis Says:
September 23rd, 2008 at 8:37 am
> The Green policy to encourage more newer vehicles could also be an environmental and economic disaster.
what policy is that?
The transport policy which the Green party has had since before the last election includes a higher registration cost for newer vehicles (as well as higher for less fuel-efficient vehicles) so that it doesn’t encourage people to shift to newer vehicles if the carbon emissions from making the new vehicles is going to outweigh the saving from greater efficiency.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The policy is not quite what I described, but rather to ensure that on average all new and second-hand vehicles imported have better fuel economy. This will most likely have the effect of driving down the age of second-hand imported vehicles, and therefore encourages more newer vehicles on the road.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Mr Dennis,
alittle off topic, but something that has been brought up at my campus recently; what is the family parties policy for devices such as this lightly discused sex-toy targeted at young girls? and others of the like such as vibrating razors? all of which show no accual signs of working for the *intended* purpose any better than the other alternatives? and available off the shelf at supermarket for that matter, lol.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sapient, I don’t think we’ve considered those at all! But I must say, when I was young we had vibrating pens that made pretty cool patterns on paper, but you could have used those for other purposes too…
You can’t just ban stuff because it could be used for a purpose you might not like. But you can strengthen families so their parents can keep an eye on what they want in their own homes.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
my concern isint in the area of people using them for that purpose, I think that sexual exploration is a vital part of healthy development, of course one should learn to do it for oneself before utilising tools, atleast in my semi-professional opinion. My concern is that these devices are designed explicitly for those purposes and marketed in such a way as to make it clear that they are available for those *other* uses.
oh, doodle pens, I remmember those! i had one back in my early primary school years, havint seen them since though.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
kiwinuke, I hope it’s Green policy to copy every green transport initiative from the Netherlands. Especially this one
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/05/05/satellite-based-road-tax-in-the-netherlands-in-2011/
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Now that idea takes Big Brother to a whole new level. Does anyone really want the government to know exactly where your car is the entire time? Does anyone actually think that people won’t just avoid paying road tax by pulling out the unit and leaving it at home? Who comes up with this stuff?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Mr. Dennis, Does anyone really want the government to know exactly how much electricity they use the entire time? Does anyone actually think that people won’t just avoid paying for electricity by pulling out the wires and bypassing the meter? Who comes up with this stuff?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)