What Nelson Mail readers say about courtesy crossings:

* The Queen Street courtesy crossings work okay for pedestrians, but drivers must negotiate that stretch of road with heart in mouth. The expectation is that motorists must give way to pedestrians, but these contrivances do not appear in the road code, therefore should not exist. The problem would be easily solved with a bit of white paint.

Tasman seems to have a fetish for making up its own rules. Even more dangerous than courtesy crossings is the 'acceleration lane'. This also does not appear in the road code. The purpose of the 'acceleration lane' is to enable motorists to turn right from Lansdowne Road onto the Appleby highway. And then stop. As some motorists actually perform this lethal manoeuvre, I will not make that turn until the merging (acceleration) lane is clear.

Tasman also seems to have its own take on roundabouts. The purpose of roundabouts is to keep traffic moving, safely and 'fairly', and they work extremely well - providing the traffic is visible. There is such importance placed on indicating at roundabouts, but when opposing traffic is hidden behind a brick or forested mountain, neither the vehicles nor their indicators are visible and the roundabout becomes more of a Russian Roulette.

Maybe TDC needs to buy a copy of the road code.

Charmaine Wratt

Upper Moutere

* These crossings are not acceptable and not for pedestrian usage. They should go! Cars can be damaged on them (Richmond) and cause a bad accident. If strangers to the town, particulary in Richmond, and hit those humps, anything could happen, and not good.

Sir, those humps should go in Richmond, and Nelson crossings re accessed also, as pedestrians are not safe. The matter should be dealt with without delay.

Tom and Grace Turner

Kaiteriteri

* They have been a source of constant frustration to me since moving to Nelson 5 years ago. I hate the way people just walk out in front of you. There is very little caution from pedestrians. Having said that rather than ripping them out, as in Nelson they have all just been unnecessarily and expensively replaced. why don't we just put up a sign indicating to pedestrians that they must give way to vehicles because they are not pedestrian crossing, and I would presume a by-law would be required to make such.

But please, please change them!

Simone Newsham

* My observation, for what its worth, ------don't meddle with our courtesy crossings, they work well, the biggest bonus is that they slow the traffic down at all times of day and night. No boy racers where they are. Just think what might happen if they were removed !!!!!

Cheers.

Brenda P.

* In my opinion these are a huge benefit in making streets more pedestrian friendly.

Having moved recently from Christchurch where there are few if any of these my experience as a pedestrian and motorist is that they increase the safety of those crossing the road and also provide a traffic calming effect.

A vehicle can drive over a 'standard' pedestrian crossing without slowing down. That can't be done in Queen Street, Richmond or in Nelson city with the raised crossings. Vehicles must slow down to cross them, which must make it safer for everyone.

They turn what could be a 'Main drag' into a far more people friendly street.

Standard crossing normally are further apart, creating a street with isolated footpaths on either side separated by vehicles travelling at 50 kmk.

Imagine what their removal would do to Queen Street and Nelson.

The US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration features them on its Saferoutesinfo.org webpage.

so it can't be said that they are just a "local special".

Other overseas research would seem to indicate that raised crosswalks appear to reduce pedestrian crashes.

A Google search of 'raised pedestrian crossings yields a large number of hits.

Presumably this retired expert also doesn't agree with the merging from the right when joining the traffic flow which seems to be used more in Nelson and Tasman than most other regions. ie The Ridgeway traffic joining Waimea Road.

Like the raised courtesy crossings it seems to be very effective. However if these were more common in the rest of the country visiting drivers might not be so confused.

Don't do away with something so practical.

Regards

Rod King

Stoke

* I am glad that some-one has brought up the subject of the courtesy crossings. I live on Riverside, so that I am a regular pedestrians and a motorists. I have for a long time, been amazed that these crossings have been allowed to stay in Nelson. Many times as a pedestrian I have watched people walk across as if they had a right of way. I have also seen pedestrians look with disgust at motorists who cross these crossings without giving way. It is my understanding that they are courtesy crossings, so both pedestrians and motorists should show courtesy. I do not mind the speed bump, but if they stay they should become proper pedestrian crossings, so that we can understand the rules as laid down in the road code.

There is one particular speed bump that I think should definitely be moved completely, and that is the one where Riverside finishes on Collingwood Street. There are very few pedestrians, there are lights for pedestrians, and cars do not know whether they are allowed to stop on the courtesy crossing while waiting for the lights. It is also inconvenient for motorists entering Riverside, as they have to negotiate the bump when they should be able to smoothly accelerate away from the lights without having to bump over the crossing.

Regards

William Rush

* Having returned to Nelson after many years living abroad, I too was confused by the so-called courtesy crossings when I first saw them. There is no mention of them in any tourist brochure I know of, and I don't see any mention of them in the AA Handbook.

I don't get into the city very often, but during 2011, I witnessed three near-misses by obviously foreign visitors travelling on Trafalgar Street. I also saw three near-misses by similar visitors not expecting two give-way restrictions on our main street.
I would be in favour of either removing all courtesy crossings from Nelson and Richmond, or adding internationally recognised parallel white lines to identify them as pedestrian crossings.

Bernard Redshaw

* Hi. In my opinion the courtesy crossings should stay.As a driver I allways take care at these crossings and regularly get a thank you wave from pedestrians .It must be pretty obvious to any driver local or visitor that the crossings are there for a reason . I cant see any reason why someone would walk out onto the crossing without first looking.Maybe a retired Aucklander would .As a pedestrian I have never had any issues on these crossings ,most times a smile and a wave . I do believe nelson city have the same crossings but bigger . Cheers Graham.

*I agree completely with every word Stu Kearns has said. Definitely get rid of them. They are dangerous and they are a pain for motorists when members of the public decide they have right of way on these crossings regardless of the fact that a car is looming just feet away (as happens frequently in my experience) - apart from being extremely inconsiderate to the driver it is sheer folly as they are taking their own life in their hands when they bowl out onto the crossing without waiting.

Ms Richardson says she is unaware of anyone being hit on these crossings; there is a first time for everything and I am amazed that so far nobody has been hit. She says Nelson drivers are generally courteous and stop - in too many cases it's a case of having to jam the brakes on as we don't have any choice! I am more than happy to stop for someone who is waiting safely to cross, not a problem. It's the others who get the blood boiling! I say remove all the courtesy crossings and install a couple of legal pedestrian crossings with the diamonds on either side, which are a guide for both driver and pedestrian as to who has right of way.

Thankyou Mr Kearns, well done!

DL Sims

Richmond.

* In reply to Mr Kearns I would like to say that he should have the good sense to inquire about the safety record of our very good working local initiative before rushing into opinionating about them. We are elderly, live adjacent to the Mall, and constantly use these crossings with no fear or near misses nor any other kind of drama. People, whether local or tourist are very well mannered about these crossings and I feel much safer on these than on the one nearer to our home which is the old white painted type. We both have experienced some drivers playing a nasty game of "chicken" on that one and feel much less safe there. Yet Mr Kearns would foolishly say that the old ones are safer! Not so, Sir. Not so at all.

Leave our brilliantly effective crossings alone and change the others to this better safer way of making them. Have you really not noticed that the boy racers with their lowered cars have to go very slowly and sidle across? These crossing MAKE vehicles slow or else they get a heck of a bang and crash if they rush and some would damage their undercarriage. Great!

It is very important for people to be safe and I love to give people a smile, thankyou with a handwave when they stop or wait for me and usually get a smile or handwave back.

The law was developed for our safety. If the law needs to change for a safer option, then change it, Mr Kearns.

Anne Green

* Yes couldn't agree more with Stu Kearns ,these crossings are neither one thing or another. We have expressed our concern to different council members but not interested.

The simple solution,(we have brought photos back to show the the council as in other towns in Australia & New Zealand) is to have a sign at either side of the crossing with either the traditional' give way' shield or a sign with' pedestrians give way to motor vehicles on it'.

Trafalgar Street especially on a Saturday is a disaster with pedestrians straggling over these crossings like Brown's cows, with the traffic backed up from one end of the street to the other. Cheers Wayne Johnson.

* I cannot agree more with Stu Kearns, the speed humps are not crossings and are a dangerous abomination. I was gobsmacked when I first encountered people walking out in front of my car without warning.

Contrary to Inspector Richardson's view, they do not work well and pedestrians are anything but courteous, they trot out in front of moving cars and expect drivers to defy the laws of physics. Of lesser, but still valid concern, they contribute to traffic gridlock at busy periods.

Stu Kearns has more accident investigation experience than Ms Richardson and the entire Nelson/Tasman councils combined, if he says they should go, then they must go.

Lou Girardin

Stoke

* Hi,

just read your article with interest. I spoke to a roading engineer at the Nelson City Council some 6 weeks ago about these crossings, expressing my concern at the lack of understanding on both sides. Are they speed humps or crossings! I was dismayed at the fact there is no signage in this politically over obsessed world of labels for most things except crossings. I too agree that these must be illegal. I have experienced people just walking out in front of me as a car and as a pedestrian waiting and nobody stops. They are confusing, dangerous and should be addressed by both councils.

Regards

Melissa Floyd

* Hi there- I totally endorse a decision (which should have been made a long time ago) to remove the 'crazy raised traps' from Queen St - local motorists & visitors have always been confused about the legal position - do pedestrians have right of way or not- as your article points out drivers from away are not sure whether to give way or challenge pedestrians on these trap crossings.

Surely the sensible way out is to totally remove the humps (which are too high anyway) - put in standard pedestrian crossings- strongly marked with diagonal white lines as they are everywhere else in the world. This would then remove all doubt.

Fred McKee

* I agree with Stu Kearns that courtesy crossings should go. I was crossing one at the airport coming from the overflow car park in September 2010. I thought it was a pedestrian crossing and I had right of way. I was halfway across when a car, which I saw and expected to stop hit me. The result, a badly fractured leg, surgery, 10 days in hospital and months of physiotheray and a permanent limp. These crossings are too uncertain to trust. Please remove them.

Barbara Doig

Stoke

* We often holiday in Nelson/Richmond and are amazed that the things across the street haven't yet had a legal challenge. What are you supposed to do when you come to them?

Should be removed forthwith. Regardless of the idea, can a local council just do this sort of stuff? Who do I send bill for vehicle repair after grounding on one? Council happy to pay for this?

Regards

Tony Blackie

Christchurch

* I think they should go. There's been a marked deterioration in pedestrian attitudes and behaviour since their introduction and although they're not pedestrian crossings, most pedestrians treat them very much as such, almost always holding up traffic to assert their insistence of their right of way.

If Tasman's road policing policy manager really believes that the raised height of courtesy crossings accords more visibility to pedestrians, she needs to be replaced.

While the "bumps" may indeed slow traffic, any increased visibility of pedestrians is complete nonsense. Throwing themselves in front of approaching vehicles as they're wont to do, most pedestrians appear to make sure that drivers will see them.

Jim Cable

* Stu Kearns is absolutely correct in what he says. Ms. Richardson feels that Nelson drivers are generally courteous and will stop when people start to cross. She further states pedestrians need to be aware of that (that they are not official crossings), but that they do what others do and (just) walk across. There is obviously potential for danger here to people if that's how she sees the situation in those two statements. Also (most emphatically), not all drivers on the road in Nelson are "Nelson" drivers - so potential for danger here too in that out of town drivers may not be aware of the "courtesy". Also, for "Nelson" drivers, and particularly particularly pedestrians, do they expect the same considerations to be extended in other towns around New Zealand. If a "Nelson" pedestrian had a similar mindset when visiting Dunedin, for instance, where there are similar pavings across the main street (which are not treated as courtesy crossings by the locals), they would most likely be skittled by an oncoming bus in crossing as they do back home in Nelson. As Stu says, you just can't make your own rules. I have found some pedestrians to be quite abusive where they have not been able to exercise their perceived "right" of crossing against an oncoming vehicle that has the right of way. On the subject of "real" pedestrian crossings, it's time for a pedestrian education campaign that a pedestrian may not step on to a crossing to exercise a right of crossing when there is a motor vehicle within the area between the diamond and the crossing itself.

Ian

* I have to agree with Stu Kearns that these courtesy crossings are an accident waiting to happen. They are potentially lethal and I am surprised there have not been any reported accidents while people are crossing. My observations are that most people treat them as pedestrian crossings, just walk out and expect vehicles to stop for them. Personally, I never venture onto them until the oncoming vehicle has come to a complete stop and I know I am safe. Several visitors have asked me what axactly are they and what is their purpose. I say get rid of them and replace with some appropriately placed pedestrian crossings! Jill Smillie, Upper Moutere

* I have always been amazed at the lack of courtesy that people show while using them as a crossing and when they are driving over them.

I always stand back from the curb before using them, waiting to be acknowledge by the vehicle approaching or letting them go past.

When I'm in the vehicle I always go very slow as most people will just walk straight out thinking that they have the right of way...NO smile or wave to acknowledge that we HAVEN'T run them down...which you do feel like doing some times.

Either get rid of the humps or make them pedestrians crossings...... please

Leah Campbell

* We believe the courtesy crossing should be removed, both from a driver perspective and pedestrian. They are a liability, one never knows when to cross/stop or what is expected and we haven’t been able to get a definitive answer to our enquiries as to the expected behaviour. They create confusion and thus accidents are bound to happen, at least mark them with the internationally accepted white lines to avoid continued confusion. We personally loath them, standard crossing require a high level of awareness as people are inclined to walk out on them adlib but these are the taking it to the extreme!
Good luck in getting this problem addressed sensibly.
Giselle and BrianStorer
MotuekaValley