Twenty seven per cent walked, 11 per cent came by public transport and cyclists accounted for just 2 per cent. In the late 80s, 42 per cent of kids walked and 12 per cent cycled.
There were similar results for secondary school students - now a car is the most common way for teenagers to get to school and cycling has gone from 19 per cent to3 per cent. That's a lot of extra cars on the road.
The Greens estimated that if walking and cycling to school returned to late- 80s levels, 100,000 cars would be off the country's roads every morning.
The Green Party promised before last year's election it would spend $200 million on cycle lanes and walkways around schools because of the perception cycling to school is dangerous.
However, as it lacks political clout, the cycle lanes and walkways remain in the nice-idea category of policy.
I'm surprised at the low numbers of children walking to school - especially as many schools have walking school buses - a great idea.
For a while there was a perception allowing your child to walk to school alone exposed them to the risk of stranger danger - now it seems crossing busy roads is more of a concern for parents.
One of the more bizarre reasons for the drop in children cycling to school is helmet hair. A couple of years ago, Christchurch city councillor Aaron Keown called for a review of New Zealand's compulsory cycle helmet law because he believed it was putting people off cycling and jeopardising Christchurch becoming a real cycling city.
He complained cycle helmets made your hair sweaty, were cumbersome and it was impossible to look cool with helmet hair. (I would also think it's impossible to look cool in neon lycra cycle shorts but Keown made no comment on that.)
He cited a British Medical Journal report showing the number of Australian cyclists had reduced 20-40 per cent when compulsory helmet laws were introduced and he wanted the Government to check the benefits of the laws.
I was incredulous. Given the choice between a traumatic brain injury or flat hair, I'd go with flat hair. Surely primary school children wouldn't opt for being driven and keeping their hair intact over the freedom a bike gives you? Wrong.
A number of parents and schoolchildren told me the main reason they chose not to cycle was because they spent a lot of time on looking good and didn't want their hair messed up.
Eight and 9-year-old boys were dab hands at gelling their hair just so and a cycle helmet played havoc with their styles.
The kids weren't concerned about the safety aspect of cycling to school - although their parents were. Their issue was the same as the Christchurch councillor's - cycle helmets weren't cool and if they had to wear them, they wouldn't bike.
Of course, this wasn't a scientific survey. The callers were self-selecting and no doubt plenty of Kiwi kids don't care what their hair looks like and would love a bike but this issue generates furious debate the Western World over.
In Britain, the pros and the antis have been fighting over the compulsory helmet issue for years, but the consensus seems to be deterring people from cycling has a disproportionately negative effect on public health and that the focus should be on designing safe roads and improving motorists' attitudes to cyclists.
That, lobbyists say, would do far more for cyclists safety than any cycle helmet.
Kerre McIvor is on Newstalk ZB, Monday-Thursday, 8pm-midnight
