“It used to be one-way years ago.”
“A lot of drivers these days drive faster and not as carefully as they once did.”
“Yes — Road markings need to be clarified.”
“If people continue to walk it and have a presence, it might deter others dumping rubbish there too.”
“Good move. Then we can run a proper Rally NZ stage over it.”
“It’s a no-brainer.”
“Yes — There have been a few close calls while driving up or down on this road, I always go one way.”
“As a frequent walker on Kaiti Hill, I have observed that a number of motorists exceed the speed limit. This danger is compounded by two-way traffic, no footpath, family and other groups that spread all over the road, and some walkers unable to hear traffic due to their earphones.”
“Yes — But it will make Endcliffe Road busier with traffic, so residents there might well be against it.”
“As a resident of the area, I don’t want a massive increase in traffic in our neighbourhood. It’s a road for vehicles. Use the walking tracks, it’s what they are for.”
Those opposed expressed their reasons why — “Roads are for motor vehicles, footpaths are for pedestrians.”
“No — They need to put in a foot path so people ain’t on the bloody road.”
“The set-up prior to the one-way system was adequate and reasonable, given that the trip to the lookout might be all some are seeking to make, rather than the full circuit. The one-way component from the lookout to Endcliffe Road should be maintained.”
“No — Perhaps create a footpath along one side. Pedestrians should walk to the side, and cars need to take the hill slowly.”
“Cars = road. Pedestrians = pavement.”
“No — It’s a road, right?”
“It’s a road, not a footpath.”
“Making it one way will just cause more problems for drivers. Pedestrians should stop acting like they own the road and keep to the side or use one of the many allocated walking tracks.”
“No — Of course we want roads to be safer for pedestrians, but why just Kaiti Hill?”
