It would be good if we could both put in a spokes submission, and also encourage individual submissions. (Though I’m not sure how much those are worth the effort in the current environment/process) We may have to work quickly, so better here online than waiting to the AGM
Could someone quickly remind me the name of the bigger bit of work these have been cynically cherry picked from?
You are so right! This is much more a national issue than local however; it is ripe for CAN to tackle (which it is). But the more the merrier in terms of submissions.
On that note, it would be super helpful for all of our @members to consider joining CAN as a financial member too. This used to be automatic, but that organisational structure was a casualty of the Incorporated Societies Act 2022.
The “Lane Use Package” of the Land Transport Rules Reform Programme. Full details in this email from the transport minister’s office:
Hon Chris Bishop
Minister of Transport
25 February 2026
Fixing the basics of NZ’s transport rules
The Government is continuing its work to fix the basics of New Zealand’s transport system, with public consultation opening today on two packages of practical rule changes to make everyday travel safer and cut red tape for truck operators, Transport Minister Chris Bishop says.
“For most New Zealanders, transport rules are not something they think about until they run into them,” Mr Bishop says.
“It might be a parent unsure whether their 10-year-old is allowed to ride their bike on the footpath, a driver not clear how much space to give a cyclist, an e-scooter rider not sure if they can use the cycle lane, a bus stuck waiting to pull back into traffic, or a truck operator tied up in paperwork just to move an empty trailer between depots.
“We are fixing the basics by making sure the rules are clear, practical, and reflect how people actually use our roads every day. This is about safer school rides, smoother bus trips, clearer guidance for drivers, and fewer compliance headaches for truck operators.
“This is technical work, but it matters in the real world. It affects how parents teach their kids to ride bikes safely, how drivers pass cyclists or horses on rural roads, how buses pull out in traffic, and how truckies get freight from A to B.”
The first package of proposals focuses on lane use and everyday road rules, aiming to make them clearer and safer for drivers, cyclists, bus users and pedestrians.
“We are seeking feedback on five practical proposals to improve the safe and efficient use of lanes and better align the rules with how people already travel,” Mr Bishop says.
Proposals include:
Allowing children up to age 12 (inclusive) to ride their bikes on footpaths, helping keep younger riders safer and reflecting common practice.
Introducing a mandatory passing gap of between one and 1.5 metres, depending on the speed limit, to give motorists clearer guidance when passing cyclists and horse riders.
Allowing e-scooters to use cycle lanes.
Requiring drivers travelling under 60 kilometres per hour to give way to buses pulling out from bus stops.
Clarifying signage rules so councils can better manage berm parking.
“Many children already ride on footpaths, although the current rule does not allow them to. Bringing the law into line with reality, with appropriate guidance and expectations around responsible riding, will help families make safer choices,” Mr Bishop says.
“I acknowledge some pedestrians, including older people and members of the disability community, may have concerns. Education and clear guidance will be important, and parents and caregivers will need to ensure children ride at safe speeds and give way to pedestrians.”
The second package focuses on heavy vehicles.
“Freight keeps our economy moving, and truck drivers are the backbone of our supply chains. We have heard clearly from operators that some of the current rules create unnecessary delays and costs without improving safety,” Mr Bishop says.
Under the proposals:
Some permit requirements would be removed so rental operators can move empty High Productivity Motor Vehicle truck and trailer combinations between depots and customers without unnecessary delays.
Driver licence settings would be updated so Class 1 licence holders can drive zero-emissions vehicles with a gross laden weight up to 7,500 kilograms, and Class 2 licence holders can drive electric buses with more than two axles with a gross laden weight up to 22,000 kilograms.
Signage requirements for load pilot vehicles would be made more practical.
Overseas heavy vehicle licence holders would be able to convert their licences either by sitting tests or completing approved courses.
“These are practical, commonsense changes. They give operators more certainty to get on with their work, reduce compliance headaches, and support the transition to low-emissions vehicles, all while keeping safety front and centre.
“These two packages of proposals are just part of the wider Land Transport Rules Reform programme.
“Last year we reduced the frequency for vintage vehicles and private motorhomes needing to get a Warrant of Fitness or Certificate of Fitness, and in recent months we’ve consulted the public on also reducing WOF/COF frequency for light vehicles, simplifying heavy vehicle permitting, and potential safety requirements for vehicles entering the fleet. We’ll have more to say on those proposals soon.
“There’s still a lot more work to do on modernising New Zealand’s Land Transport Rules. We hear the freight and heavy vehicle sectors loud and clear when they tell us there are more changes they’d like to see, and policy work is underway to carefully consider those ideas.
“These changes are just a first step in commonsense reforms across New Zealand’s transport system. The Ministry of Transport and NZTA will build on the momentum of the programme by considering further reforms to Land Transport Rules, informed by issues that have been raised by industry and the public. There is also research underway to inform future work to enable more productive vehicles.
“We encourage parents, cyclists, bus users, disability advocates, truck drivers, transport operators, councils and everyday road users to have their say on the current proposals. Good rules are built on commonsense feedback from people who live by them.”
Media contact: Mikaela Bossley Clark +21 275 0454
Notes to editors
Consultation on the Heavy Vehicle Package and the Lane Use Package runs from 25 February to 25 March 2026.
The proposals form part of the Government’s wider Land Transport Rules Reform Programme.
Submissions can be made via the NZTA:
https://www.nzta.govt.nz/laneuse, https://www.nzta.govt.nz/hvp-phase-2
Here’s the stalled proposal the 1m and 1.5 m passing distances come from. It had a fair amount of consultation so I think they reckon it should be easy to get cyclist buy in. I haven’t yet read in depth but I’m not sure it envisaged adding cyclists on large bikes to footpaths. It does talk about a speed limit of 15 km/hr
Also popping up the consultation on Waka Kotahi / NZTA website. Consultation closes 25 March
Very useful to know some history!
Here are CAN’s thoughts on it:
In summary they:
agree with all 5 proposals in principle
propose a minimum 1.5m passing distance for all passing vehicle speeds as this is safer and much easier to communicate and police
suggest that supervising adults are allowed to accompany up-to-12yo’s on pavements
I’m going to advocate within CAN for abolition of any prohibition of cycling on pavements, with the proviso that unsafe transport use / endangering others is never legal or appropriate regardless of the mode used.
I’ve had a conversation with Julia McLean, NZVRU Trust. She’s trying to get groups all facing the same way. The one ask she had is that for horses, 1.5m is not enough, and her group would push for 2m.
My experience in the UK is that motorists give horses more space than cyclists, but apparently horse rides often think it is the other way round…!
Quite late in the piece, but here’s my hot take: allowing 12 year olds onto footpaths because children and their parents feel the road is unsafe, is just negating the real issue that roads are unsafe (for young and old) and that we should instead of allowing children on footpaths (which, sure I get and think it’s largely fine) we should be pushing harder for more and better safe active transport infrastructure on arterial roads and traffic calming design elsewhere?
You are right, but we do need a practical solution for places that don’t have appropriate infrastructure, and/or are unlikely to get it in future.
Personally, I think that banning cycling at any age on the footpaths is unhelpful.
If note, submissions are due 2026-03-25T04:00:00Z, so make sure you submit ASAP!!
Here is our submission about this, submitted to the NZTA today:
Spokes Dunedin supports these proposed rule changes overall. They are sensible, practical steps that better reflect how people already use streets and paths.
However, rule changes alone will not deliver a safer environment for active travel. They are being proposed in a broader transport context that has weakened support for walking and cycling. If the Government wants more people to walk, cycle, scoot, and use public transport, it also needs to fund safe infrastructure, support lower traffic speeds where appropriate, and invest in behaviour-change programmes.
Across all proposals, education and enforcement will be critical. Many drivers are still unaware of existing responsibilities around sharing the road and footpath environment safely. Without public education and visible enforcement, these reforms risk having limited real-world effect.
Spokes Dunedin supports this proposal.
This change would bring the rules more into line with reality. For many children, riding on the footpath is the safest and most practical option, particularly on busy urban roads. It would also allow cycle skills instructors to teach safe footpath riding and sharing behaviours openly and lawfully.
We also support allowing a parent, caregiver, or instructor accompanying a child to ride on the footpath as well. In practice, this is often the only realistic way to supervise children, model good behaviour, and help them safely manage crossings, driveways, and interactions with pedestrians. Supervising from the roadway is often impractical, especially where there is only a footpath on one side of the road or where traffic volumes make slow riding difficult and stressful.
Just as importantly, this proposal should acknowledge a wider reality: many adult cyclists already ride on footpaths because they consider the road environment too dangerous. That is common on busy roads, high-speed corridors, and routes without safe cycling infrastructure. While this proposal is focused on children, it highlights a broader problem — too many roads still feel unsafe for ordinary people on bikes.
That does not make footpaths an ideal place for routine cycling. They are not. Footpaths can be narrow, uneven, interrupted, and heavily used by pedestrians. They must remain safe and accessible for disabled people, older people, and others using them on foot. But this proposal should not be treated as a substitute for proper cycling infrastructure. The better long-term solution remains safe, separated cycleways and well-designed networks that reduce conflict between people walking and cycling.
Spokes Dunedin strongly supports this proposal.
This is the most significant proposal in the package. Close passes are intimidating, discourage people from cycling, and can directly cause crashes. A legal minimum passing distance would be an important improvement.
The distance needs to be both safe and easy to understand. We support a 1.5 metre minimum passing distance, and in our view it should apply on roads above the default urban speed limit of 50 km/h at the very least. There is also a strong case for applying 1.5 metres on all roads, simply because a single, clear rule would be easier for drivers to remember and follow.
We are concerned that a threshold of “faster than 60 km/h” is too high in practice, as it would generally mean the 1.5 metre rule only applied on roads posted at 70 km/h or above. A 1 metre gap leaves too little room for rider movement, road hazards, driver error, or differing interpretations of where the gap is measured from.
This proposal should also reinforce a basic principle: if a driver cannot pass safely, they must wait. On narrow roads or around blind corners, safe passing may mean slowing down and holding position until it is safe to move across properly. That message should be central to public education.
Vehicle type matters too. Buses and trucks create more wind turbulence and often take longer to pass, so they should be expected to allow at least 1.5 metres at any speed, ideally by changing lanes fully where possible.
Enforcement will matter. If this is to be more than a symbolic rule, practical ways to report and act on unsafe passing — including through video evidence — should be explored.
Spokes Dunedin supports this proposal.
This is a sensible and pragmatic change. Where cycle lanes are available, they are generally a better place for e-scooters than footpaths. That is safer and more appropriate for e-scooter users, and it reduces conflict for pedestrians.
We do not see major downsides. Cycle lanes already accommodate a range of speeds and vehicle types, including standard bikes and e-bikes. E-scooters fit more naturally in that environment than on footpaths.
At the same time, this proposal does not remove the need for better infrastructure or for action on reckless riding, particularly in relation to some hire scooters. Safer networks and stronger compliance tools are both needed.
Spokes Dunedin supports this proposal.
This should improve bus reliability and make public transport more efficient, benefiting more people than it delays. It may also reduce unsafe crossing behaviour by passengers trying to cross in front of a bus that is still waiting to pull out.
From a cycling perspective, it may also reduce awkward situations where a person on a bike is left behind a bus waiting to re-enter traffic, or feels pressured to overtake when they would rather not.
Bus drivers must still pull out only when it is safe to do so. In particular, they need to check carefully for people cycling past the bus who were already overtaking before the bus signalled. Education for both bus drivers and the wider public will be important here.
Spokes Dunedin supports this proposal.
Unsafe berm parking can obstruct footpaths, block access, and encroach on spaces used by people walking and cycling. It can also create dooring and visibility hazards.
The main benefit of this proposal will depend on enforcement and public understanding. If local authorities are expected to manage unsafe parking effectively, they need the resources and support to do so. As with the other proposals, the rule change will only work well if it is backed by education and enforcement.
Spokes Dunedin supports this package of reforms. They are worthwhile changes that should improve safety and better reflect the needs of people walking, cycling, scooting, and using public transport.
However, they should be seen as a starting point, not a complete solution. To create a transport system that is genuinely safe and attractive for active travel, New Zealand also needs better infrastructure, safer speeds, stronger education, and meaningful enforcement.
