More than a week after route alternatives were sent, residents still have no answer and no relief.
On Sunday evening, 7 June 2026, residents followed up with Checkers Sixty60 again after two mapped route alternatives had been sent on 31 May 2026: one similar-time route that removes a large part of the affected residential stretch, and one main-road route only about 100 to 200 metres longer. Residents report that no response, route instruction, main-road trial, or mitigation date had been confirmed while noisy delivery bikes continued using the affected residential route.
- Two route alternatives with screenshots were sent on 31 May 2026.
- One appeared to be the same distance and estimated time while removing a large part of the affected residential stretch.
- The other appeared to be only about 100 to 200 metres longer while keeping through-traffic on main roads.
- By 7 June 2026, residents reported no response or confirmation of action.
- Residents again reported noisy delivery-bike passes every few minutes on a Sunday evening.
Date: 7 June 2026
Privacy note: exact residential street names, staff names, and private email details have been removed. The purpose is to document the unresolved operational issue and the continued lack of practical mitigation.
More than a week had passed since residents sent Checkers Sixty60 mapped route alternatives with screenshots and direct questions. As of Sunday evening, 7 June 2026, residents reported no response, no confirmation of action, and no visible route mitigation.
The immediate request remains narrow: if a rider is not delivering in the affected residential street, do not use that street as a through-route. Use the main-road alternatives instead.
Another Sunday evening with no confirmed change
Residents reported another quiet Sunday evening being interrupted by repeated Sixty60 delivery-bike passes through the residential route, with noisy bikes passing every few minutes.
The follow-up was sent because the route proposal had still not produced a practical answer. Residents had already shown one route that appears to remove a large part of the affected residential stretch at the same distance and time, and another route that appears to avoid residential through-traffic for only about 100 to 200 metres more. If Checkers disagrees, residents are asking for a specific operational explanation.
Route data should make this enforceable
The resident again asked whether Checkers or its delivery partners can use GPS, route, speed, braking, or similar operational data to prevent repeated shortcut use through affected residential streets.
This is not a request for a future fleet replacement programme or a citywide transport study. It is an immediate route instruction that could be communicated, monitored, and adjusted if there is a legitimate operational issue.
The questions now need specific answers
The 7 June follow-up again asked for direct answers:
- Will riders be instructed not to use the affected residential streets as through-routes unless they are delivering there?
- Will available GPS or route data be used to monitor and enforce that instruction?
- Will Checkers trial the main-road alternatives already provided?
- By what date will practical mitigation be implemented?
Residents have also restated the human impact: repeated motorbike noise in the home, stress, anxiety, exhaustion, and the loss of basic quiet during evenings and weekends. The practical issue is still unresolved: two mapped alternatives have been supplied, but no answer or route mitigation has been confirmed.