Three kids riding on a footpath, with blue zigzaggy borders
This is currently illegal (unless the bikes have really small wheels) (Image: The Spinoff)

PoliticsJuly 14, 2025

Kids on footpaths, e-scooters in bike lanes: transport law catches up to reality

Three kids riding on a footpath, with blue zigzaggy borders
This is currently illegal (unless the bikes have really small wheels) (Image: The Spinoff)

Cycling and e-scooting enthusiasts are welcoming legislative upgrades that will improve safety – and match what people are doing already.

It is 2025. You are walking down the street. A child bikes past you on the footpath. You cross the road, waiting a few extra seconds for a bus to slowly pull out from its stop and into traffic. On the other side of the road, an e-scooter rider accelerates in the bike lane.

What is wrong with this picture? Well, the law: technically, it was illegal for the child to be riding on the footpath, and the e-scooter rider to be in the bike lane. Meanwhile, the six cars who didn’t let the bus merge were in the right. 

Transport law changes announced by minister Chris Bishop in June will go some way to making the law align with reality. The minister sold it as ways to “take the handbrake off productivity”. The changes include changing WOF frequencies, implementing digital drivers licences and potentially revising regulations for imported vehicles. Of particular interest to some transport advocates are several safety-focused rules: allowing e-scooters to use bike lanes, children to bike on the footpath and requiring cars to give way to merging buses.   

“I was always worried that there might be a grumpy pedestrian saying we weren’t allowed on the footpath,” says Philippa Curtis. Living in St Martins in Christchurch, she took her three kids to their primary school on bikes until about two years ago, when they became confident enough to ride on roads. 

a bike lane in wellington
A bike lane on Wellington’s harbour, heading towards the airport Photo: Wellington City Council

While they lived only a block away, getting to the primary school on the road required two right turns. “There are bends and corners [on Centaurus Road] and lots of cars at the school run time,” Curtis says. Staying on the footpath was faster and safer, with no road crossings required. “It would be nonsensical to cross the road twice just for a block … safety was a higher priority.” She’s noticed that even now when riding on roads, her youngest child will avoid going into traffic to get around a parked car by going on the footpath.

Cycling on the footpath, where pedestrians will continue to have right of way, requires patience. Curtis’s children had to get used to going slowly, at times, behind people who were walking to school.

The updated rules also have some inconsistencies, as a post on urbanist blog Greater Auckland points out. There’s no clarification on whether parents should be riding next to kids, for instance. 

It’s been a long time coming: these changes for bikes and e-scooters were included in the Accessible Streets proposal in February 2020. What Bishop announced took the top line of these changes, without establishing an overall footpath framework to prioritise pedestrians or give cyclists in a bike lane right of way ahead of left-turning traffic. 

two young women on pink-branded escooters in the sunshine, wearing helmets
Two Flamingo riders, who would be allowed in cycle lanes under the new rules (Image: supplied)

Jacksen Love, co-founder of rental scooter provider Flamingo, says that allowing e-scooters in cycle lanes was something Flamingo has always wanted. “It just makes sense,” he says. Flamingo operates in seven towns and cities around Aotearoa, including Auckland, Wellington, Dunedin and Tauranga. “When we talk to first time riders, safety comes up as a big barrier,” Love says.

The company has seen a shift away from late-night and weekend use when they first launched, and most users were riding scooters recreationally. Now, the busiest days are during the week. When the rule comes into effect, Flamingo will be able to communicate safe routes in cycle lanes to their users. 

Personally, Love is looking forward to Flamingo scooters being officially allowed in the cycle route along Cambridge Terrace in Wellington which goes all the way to Island Bay; at a recent launch for the completed route, they could only use Flamingo’s e-bikes. “It’ll be exciting to eventually have events and promotions to encourage the use of scooters and bikes in bike lanes,” Love says. 

The rules for e-scooters and bikes are changing, but have always been hard to enforce. Another rule change would be making a one metre passing distance for cars around bikes in 60km/h and under zones, and 1.5m when the speed limit is above 60. “We strongly support a 1.5m gap and hope it will be enforced quickly,” says Fox Bennetts, a spokesperson for Spokes Canterbury. But without every cyclist and driver carrying around a retractable tape measure, could anyone prove how far away they were when they passed a cyclist? 

Cycle advocates would like to see the changes paired with other improvements. E-scooters and e-skateboards in cycle lanes are a reason to fund more cycle lanes, Bennetts says. “The government should fund value for money cycleway infrastructure for the benefit of a wide range of mobility options.” 

“While it’s great to update the rules to reflect reality, it’s no excuse to not keep pushing for safer cycleways,” says Curtis. Her kids’ ride to primary school was only a few hundred metres but “we want to go further than that on our bikes, and feel safer to do so”. She says that children should have safe options for riding on roads too, and not have to “re-learn” cycle techniques when they want to go faster than is possible on a footpath. 

While people are optimistic about these changes, implementation is still a while  away: The changes concerning bikes, e-scooters and buses won’t be in place until 2026. In the meantime, it’s hard to imagine anyone fining a child for riding a bike on the footpath.

The Spinoff is your meeting place in turbulent times, and with your help, we’ll see it through.
Keep going!
As you can imagine, there’s a lot to take in.
As you can imagine, there’s a lot to take in.

OPINIONPoliticsJuly 14, 2025

30 things I learned from 30 hours of Regulatory Standards Bill hearings

As you can imagine, there’s a lot to take in.
As you can imagine, there’s a lot to take in.

It’s pretty confusing on the surface, but if you had 30 hours to spare, you would have learnt a lot about the Regulatory Standards Bill from its week in the select committee.

The finance and expenditure committee’s hearings on the Regulatory Standards Bill (RSB) came to a close on Friday, following four days, 30 hours, 208 submissions and a whole load of takes. Submissions spanned perspectives from the environment and energy sectors to individuals living with disabilities or in poverty. It’s a contentious bill whose name and purpose tends to return puzzled looks, because really, what does it all mean?

There’s been much to say about the public perception of the bill and its many vocal opponents from its architect, deputy prime minister David Seymour. There’s been “so much misinformation” despite it simply setting out a framework for better regulations, Seymour reckoned on Monday, though his accusations of the bill’s opponents having some kind of “derangement syndrome” haven’t really been helpful, either.

Dr Bryce Wilkinson and Dr Eric Crampton sit at the bench in select committee room 4 to give their oral submission on the RSB.
Dr Bryce Wilkinson (left), submitting beside Dr Eric Crampton (right), laid out the blueprint for the bill in a 2001 report.

Meanwhile, opponents have been campaigning against the bill with the same ferocity shown in the lead up to the justice committee’s hearings on the Treaty principles bill earlier this year. While the emphasis on property and individual rights have raised immediate alarm bells, there’s also a lot of interpretation about what the bill could do, like giving corporations the power to take the government or the little guy to court when they believe their property rights have been impeded on.

Realistically, the truth is somewhere in between. Because elements of the RSB are so vague – its scope, its principles and its purpose – it’s hard to tell what Aotearoa will look like after the bill comes into full force on July 1, 2026. Ideally, this select committee process will take into account the concerns shared by submitters, and shape the bill into something we can visualise a little better.

Until then, here’s everything that I learnt about the bill and its submitters from these hearings:

  1. If oral submissions are anything to go by, most of the public opposes this bill.
  2. But there’s also a decent chunk sitting on the fence because, yeah, Aotearoa does need improved regulations, but there’s sufficient doubt that the RSB will actually achieve this.
  3. Subpart 5 of the RSB clarifies that the bill does not impose legal rights nor does it require compliance. Despite this, many submitters who opposed the bill feared it could give large corporations too much power in the court room, like in the case of Phillip Morris (tobacco) v the Australian government over plain packaging legislation.
  4. There is a genuine argument that the longer this bill stays in statute, the more influence it could gain over time, and the more likely certain courts may look to its principles as guidelines.
  5. There’s often a lot of dissonance between the way the courts have interpreted the law and how parliament interprets it.
  6. If a Phillip Morris v Australia situation played out in Aotearoa because of the RSB, parliament could just draft an amendment to make the bill’s legal restrictions tighter.
  7. And Seymour can very easily claim no blame for what the courts have done.
  8. But there’s also the potential of the RSB becoming like the Bill of Rights Act, which is a part of our unwritten constitution but is more-so quasi-constitutional: it’s not entrenched in law, but it’s been around long enough – and has enough influence – to impact on the law-making process.
  9. There is a genuine case for including the Treaty in the bill. Seymour and the man who dreamt up the bill’s blueprint, Dr Bryce Wilkinson, both claim there’s nothing in the bill that wouldn’t uphold Māori rights, but it’s a bit deeper than that – the principles of responsible regulation just don’t align with a te ao Māori worldview.
  10. The principles of responsible regulations do need a broader appeal if we want legislation that will actually improve our regulations, not a law that will be chucked out when the next Labour government is elected.
  11. Only applying the bill’s principles to primary legislation will make this palaver far less of a headache.
  12. Treating everyone as “equal” under the law is actually not a great way of helping our most vulnerable communities.
  13. Essentially everything in your life is regulated, from the air you breathe to the clothes you wear and the home you return to every night and what you’re eating when you get there. Maybe this is a pretty juvenile thing to realise at the ripe age of 25, but it’s also not something the layman often thinks about.
  14. Regulations aren’t necessarily a bad thing, either – they can keep us alive.
  15. Certain industries, such as the energy sector, are set to benefit a lot more from the RSB than others.
  16. Much of what the proposed regulatory standards board will do is already covered by the regulatory review committee.
  17. The Clerk of the House can submit on bills, and in this parliamentary term the Clerk has submitted in person on three occasions. When deputy clerk Suze Jones showed up to the RSB hearing on Wednesday, Labour’s Deborah Russell (who joined parliament in 2017) claimed it was the first time she had seen the Clerk submit to the select committee in person.
  18. Geoffrey Palmer likes to be punctual – he showed up an hour early for his submission.
  19. Russell has a PhD in political theory. And is familiar with Jean Rousseau.
  20. Donna Huata, founding member of the Act Party, has some shame about what the party has become.
  21. Most submitters show up just before their allotted speaking time and leave right after, but there was one submitter who stayed for hours to hear multiple perspectives: Tex Edwards, of Monopoly Watch NZ.
  22. Trickle down economics is like pissing on people and telling them it’s rain.
  23. Ministers aren’t supposed to attend select committees unless they’re invited, which is why you can’t really blame Seymour for not showing up.
  24. But, it makes a big difference to a submitter to have the committee actually show up. Holding the RSB hearings in a non-sitting week meant the MPs were all back in their electorates and listening on Zoom, and this didn’t go down smoothly with a few submitters who hoped they could make their case face-to-face.
  25. You probably won’t get a heads up that no one’s in the room if you’re showing up to parliament to submit, either.
  26. The online discourse around this bill is already having real life implications, with lawyer Tania Waikato needing a security escort to make her submission at parliament.
  27. The select committee can play pretty fast and loose with allotted speaking times, like cutting some submissions short, or letting others stretch past their allotted time, as was allowed for the NZ Initiative.
  28. Even our politicians forget to turn the mute button off/on. It’s not just you.
  29. The administrative staff who run these hearings are very lovely people. They didn’t have to answer stupid questions from journalists (or a single journalist, aka me) but they did anyway.
  30. It’s possible for something to have the potential to be both really good, and really bad.