Thames-Coromandel District Council: A rainbow crossing is not a pedestrian crossing

An artist's impression of a rainbow pedestrian crossing in Grahamstown, Thames.

A 1000-strong petition calling for a rainbow pedestrian crossing on the main street of Thames has been tabled but one submitter has questioned its legal status.

Ruth Efford spoke to the Thames-Coromandel Community Board last Wednesday when it received a petition titled ‘Let’s give Grahamstown a rainbow crossing’.

Linda Davidson spoke in support of the petition, as speaker in the deputation, saying a petition to paint the Grahamstown pedestrian crossing in the town’s historic precinct, had attracted 1012 signatures in support.

The board agreed to accept the deputation, without making a decision, then passing the matter on to council staff for further consideration.

Efford said she had made inquiries, adding she was sad and disappointed about the proposal.

What was proposed was not a legal description of a pedestrian crossing, she said.

“To paint on the white lines would be graffiti, the lines have to be in the description of the Land Transport Act.”

Thames-Coromandel District Council roading infrastructure manager Ed Varley, in a written response, addressed Efford’s point on Monday.

“A rainbow crossing is not a recognised road marking according to national standards and is therefore not legally recognised as a pedestrian crossing,” Varley said.

A spokesperson for NZ Transport Agency Waka Kotahi (NZTA) said the responsibility for installing rainbow crossings and other roadway art rested with the relevant road controlling authority, Thames Coromandel District Council for local roads, and NZTA for state highways.

The spokesperson said the Land Transport traffic control devices rules, updated in 2023, covered the requirements, and under section 5.6 of the rules, art could be installed if it did not resemble and was not similar to a marking described in the rule, and if it did not mislead road users about the meaning of any traffic control device.

Efford asked the meeting what the true meaning of a rainbow was.

“They are a message of hope, being a Christian, the rainbow came after Noah’s Ark.

“The people behind this are not respecting others in the community; have it somewhere else, but not on a pedestrian crossing.”

Gisborne’s rainbow pedestrian crossing. Photo / File.

District councillor Robyn Sinclair then asked Efford if she was suggesting that other centres such as Auckland and Tauranga had acted illegally in allowing rainbow pedestrian crossings.

Efford said she was not making accusations, saying it was up to those councils in terms of the crossings.

“I’m just asking our council to have it somewhere else.”

Davidson said the rainbow community was not new, it had always been there.

“Thames has a valuable rainbow community, Grahamstown is the visitor part of town, it is the only place to put the crossing.”

Davidson said it was difficult for young people in small towns, and visibility would show they were not alone.

“This would be about diversity; we might have slightly different lenses, but our goals are the same.”

Community board member Holly MacKenzie said having a rainbow pedestrian crossing could encourage graffiti if people didn’t want it.

Davidson said there was a need for CCTV in the area and that it would potentially be a hate crime if anyone was to deface a rainbow pedestrian crossing.

“That would be pretty stupid.”

Davidson said shops, markets and a range of members of the public had been canvassed about the proposal.

Davidson asked when a decision would be likely.

Thames Community Board chairman Adrian Catran said it was not his decision; it was a deputation.

“My assumption is that it will go to the roading manager; I’m not going down that path if it is legal or not, we will have to receive it.

“I couldn’t guarantee a time, but rest assured you will get an answer.”