A quick scoot around at lunchtime today revealed only three bikes at the docking station nearest Charing Cross (Craven Street). Tales I'm hearing is that the scheme is taking off among commuters. A day's access fee is £1 (or less if you buy weekly or yearly access) and a 30-minute ride is free. Two peak Zone 1 singles (Oyster price) are £3.60, so the difference is £2.60. That's quite a saving over a day. Compounded up over a year, that would be a saving of £819 based on 48 weeks travel and yearly access. Wow. You could buy quite a decent bike with that.
There's always a market for cheaper travel, so I wouldn't be at all surprised if we start to see starvation or overflow problems. Within a short distance of Charing Cross, we have William IV Street (36 docks), Craven Street (23 docks) and Whitehall Place (46 docks). That's 105 docks in total. Around 120,000 journeys are made into or out of Charing Cross Station every day. Only one in a thousand of those would need to involve a hire bike to exceed the local hire system capacity.
Maybe Boris could get the unemployed to cycle the bikes to and from Charing Cross to balance the supply?
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Prejudice and Cyclists
Prejudice is a (usually negative) preconceived belief, opinion, or judgment made without recourse to reason drawing typically instead upon received information or upon instinctual preference: any unreasonable attitude that is unusually resistant to rational influence.
Everyone has generalizations, because in life we have to make quick decisions based on limited available information and on our previous experiences. We rely on stereotypes to predict how people are likely to behave. Generalizations give us a certain security, a more or less reliable frame of reference.
But there comes a point beyond which generalizations become prejudice. This happens when you start to judge a group by the behaviour of its worst members. You collect anecdotes that reinforce your generalization and ignore those that don't. You dehumanize the group. You project opinions or attitudes such as superiority, aggression, selfishness, dishonesty or criminality on the group as a whole. You ignore or justify injustices or discrimination against the group, while resenting its privileges. You blame the group for its misfortunes. You criticise the way they look, the way they dress. You believe any misbehaviour of some member of the group means that all the rights and privileges of the group are automatically forfeit.
Anyone who is a member of a minority group will likely be familiar with this, and with the problems that prejudice causes. Cyclists probably have as many prejudices as anyone else, but like any minority group, they're particularly vulnerable to prejudices once they get established in the media and among less enlightened members of the population. You don't have to hang around the internet for long before you see it.
The good thing about cycling is that when you get off your bike and get changed, you're a regular person again. You're a husband/wife/partner, father/mother, son/daughter, worker, business person, customer, friend. In short, you're human again. The prejudiced can't get you any more.
Everyone has generalizations, because in life we have to make quick decisions based on limited available information and on our previous experiences. We rely on stereotypes to predict how people are likely to behave. Generalizations give us a certain security, a more or less reliable frame of reference.
But there comes a point beyond which generalizations become prejudice. This happens when you start to judge a group by the behaviour of its worst members. You collect anecdotes that reinforce your generalization and ignore those that don't. You dehumanize the group. You project opinions or attitudes such as superiority, aggression, selfishness, dishonesty or criminality on the group as a whole. You ignore or justify injustices or discrimination against the group, while resenting its privileges. You blame the group for its misfortunes. You criticise the way they look, the way they dress. You believe any misbehaviour of some member of the group means that all the rights and privileges of the group are automatically forfeit.
Anyone who is a member of a minority group will likely be familiar with this, and with the problems that prejudice causes. Cyclists probably have as many prejudices as anyone else, but like any minority group, they're particularly vulnerable to prejudices once they get established in the media and among less enlightened members of the population. You don't have to hang around the internet for long before you see it.
The good thing about cycling is that when you get off your bike and get changed, you're a regular person again. You're a husband/wife/partner, father/mother, son/daughter, worker, business person, customer, friend. In short, you're human again. The prejudiced can't get you any more.
Has anyone seen Norman Baker?
Norman Baker is under-secretary of State for Transport, with responsibility for
Come on Norman. Say something!
- Walking and Cycling
- Accessibility and Equalities
- Alternatives to travel
- Light rail and trams
- Parking
- Traffic management
Come on Norman. Say something!
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
National Travel Survey - Cycling Up?
The CTC say that the National Travel Survey shows cycling has grown to the 'highest level in decades'.
Well, this blog may not be politically correct, but I like to think it is at least numerate.
From the Survey, in terms of the number of trips, cycle use has been in steady decline since 1995. Between 2008 and 2009 it went down, and the longer-term trend is definitely down, on any reasonable interpretation.
Now let's look at distance travelled. The total distance travelled by cycle per person has gone up. See the following statistics for miles cycled per person per year:
95-97 : 43
98-00 : 40
02 : 36
03 : 37
04 : 39
05 : 36
06 : 39
07 : 40
08 : 42
09 : 46
So the number of miles cycled seems to have dipped to a low between 2002 and 2005, and then risen. It's a little higher than the 1995 number, but not by much.
Next you have to ask the question: is this a long-term upward trend, or is it a blip on a long-term downward trend? We know that recessions are good for cycling, so you could interpret the recent rise as economically-determined. And the CTC acknowledge this. Another possible factor is the boom in cycling as a sport. I don't have any figures, but I see a lot more road bikes in the shops and on the roads than I used to.
However, I still maintain that as a transport option there are three causal factors behind any increase in cycling levels, and they boil down to the alternatives getting worse. Public transport overcrowding, unreliability and fare rises, fear of terrorism outweighing fear of motorists, and the congestion charge making motoring expensive.
So it'll be interesting to see if the new age of austerity results in cycling being promoted by fare rises and disinvestment in public transport, or suppressed by non-enforcement of road traffic law and lack of investment in infrastructure.
Well, this blog may not be politically correct, but I like to think it is at least numerate.
From the Survey, in terms of the number of trips, cycle use has been in steady decline since 1995. Between 2008 and 2009 it went down, and the longer-term trend is definitely down, on any reasonable interpretation.
Now let's look at distance travelled. The total distance travelled by cycle per person has gone up. See the following statistics for miles cycled per person per year:
95-97 : 43
98-00 : 40
02 : 36
03 : 37
04 : 39
05 : 36
06 : 39
07 : 40
08 : 42
09 : 46
So the number of miles cycled seems to have dipped to a low between 2002 and 2005, and then risen. It's a little higher than the 1995 number, but not by much.
Next you have to ask the question: is this a long-term upward trend, or is it a blip on a long-term downward trend? We know that recessions are good for cycling, so you could interpret the recent rise as economically-determined. And the CTC acknowledge this. Another possible factor is the boom in cycling as a sport. I don't have any figures, but I see a lot more road bikes in the shops and on the roads than I used to.
However, I still maintain that as a transport option there are three causal factors behind any increase in cycling levels, and they boil down to the alternatives getting worse. Public transport overcrowding, unreliability and fare rises, fear of terrorism outweighing fear of motorists, and the congestion charge making motoring expensive.
So it'll be interesting to see if the new age of austerity results in cycling being promoted by fare rises and disinvestment in public transport, or suppressed by non-enforcement of road traffic law and lack of investment in infrastructure.
Attempted murder?
I don't like to post too many of these stories but this was a particularly sickening injustice.
A motorist deliberately ran down a cyclist. You would think anyone who deliberately assaulted another person using a large, deadly machine, left the scene and attempted to pervert the course of justice would be charged with attempted murder. But not in the UK - just dangerous driving.
The fact that his deliberate actions came to light was simply as a result of his being generally a thoroughly despicable person, and his past actions and enemies (including his own mother) metaphorically and literally testified against him. So he got his karmic reward. Or did he? 33 months jail, for someone who has a previous conviction for leaving the scene of a crash? For deliberately inflicting life-threatening injuries from which the victim will never recover? With early release, this low-life will be killing again pretty soon.
So proving death by dangerous driving was easy in this case, even if justice wasn't done. If the perpetrator had been more calculating, he would have realised that 'sorry mate I didn't see you' or 'sorry mate I fainted' or even 'it was the spider's fault' is a valid defence in British courts. It's almost impossible to prove that a cyclist was deliberately hit, or even to prove dangerous driving, because the law is weighted so decisively against the victim. It's strange how in recent years with offences such as terrorism and knife crime, which result in far fewer victims than road crime, the Government has felt free to infringe civil liberties and lower the thresholds and standards for detection and conviction. Meanwhile, in the world of motoring, the opposite is happening. The safeguards against lawbreaking are being rolled back with the Government's war against the speed camera. If you're hit by a motorist, you're nothing more than collateral damage.
The right of the driver to do as he or she pleases seems to be the most unassailable, most fundamental right of all.
A motorist deliberately ran down a cyclist. You would think anyone who deliberately assaulted another person using a large, deadly machine, left the scene and attempted to pervert the course of justice would be charged with attempted murder. But not in the UK - just dangerous driving.
The fact that his deliberate actions came to light was simply as a result of his being generally a thoroughly despicable person, and his past actions and enemies (including his own mother) metaphorically and literally testified against him. So he got his karmic reward. Or did he? 33 months jail, for someone who has a previous conviction for leaving the scene of a crash? For deliberately inflicting life-threatening injuries from which the victim will never recover? With early release, this low-life will be killing again pretty soon.
So proving death by dangerous driving was easy in this case, even if justice wasn't done. If the perpetrator had been more calculating, he would have realised that 'sorry mate I didn't see you' or 'sorry mate I fainted' or even 'it was the spider's fault' is a valid defence in British courts. It's almost impossible to prove that a cyclist was deliberately hit, or even to prove dangerous driving, because the law is weighted so decisively against the victim. It's strange how in recent years with offences such as terrorism and knife crime, which result in far fewer victims than road crime, the Government has felt free to infringe civil liberties and lower the thresholds and standards for detection and conviction. Meanwhile, in the world of motoring, the opposite is happening. The safeguards against lawbreaking are being rolled back with the Government's war against the speed camera. If you're hit by a motorist, you're nothing more than collateral damage.
The right of the driver to do as he or she pleases seems to be the most unassailable, most fundamental right of all.
Monday, August 2, 2010
Olympic VIP Lanes
Olympic 'fat cats' (or should that be slim, well-conditioned cats?) are to get their own priority traffic lanes in London for the 2012 Olympics. I wonder if cyclists will be banned from these lanes?
Reported in the Standard, Steve McNamara, spokesman for the Licensed Taxi Driver's Association said "This will cause chaos on the streets and what will it do to pollution levels?"
Sadly, Steve seems to have forgotten a couple of basic facts:
1) Black cabs are responsible for 40% of London's ground-level pollution. The black cab is one of the most polluting vehicles on the road, in terms of particulate, NOX and CO2 emissions. So if these VIP lanes reduce the number of cab journeys, it will be good news for pollution levels.
2) London's streets are pretty much chaos a lot of the time anyway, and it's no thanks to the large number of unnecessary cab journeys.
As I've said before, I have nothing against cab drivers. Taxis are an essential part of the transport system, just not in the huge numbers we have today. Black cabs account for a good 70% of traffic in central London, and a lot of cab journeys could easily and quickly be undertaken by public transport. Many people take a taxi simply because it's the lazy option. They don't have to do any thinking, and their company picks up part of the bill. The other part of the bill is picked up by Londoners, who pay the price of living in a congested, polluted and dangerous city.
I'll be an interesting excercise in finding out whether the city can cope with a reduction in the amount of roadspace given over to general motor traffic. My prediction is that anyone who is sensible and can avoid London roads will do so. People will have to think more carefully about their travel plans, which is no bad thing, but business will likely continue pretty much as usual.
Reported in the Standard, Steve McNamara, spokesman for the Licensed Taxi Driver's Association said "This will cause chaos on the streets and what will it do to pollution levels?"
Sadly, Steve seems to have forgotten a couple of basic facts:
1) Black cabs are responsible for 40% of London's ground-level pollution. The black cab is one of the most polluting vehicles on the road, in terms of particulate, NOX and CO2 emissions. So if these VIP lanes reduce the number of cab journeys, it will be good news for pollution levels.
2) London's streets are pretty much chaos a lot of the time anyway, and it's no thanks to the large number of unnecessary cab journeys.
As I've said before, I have nothing against cab drivers. Taxis are an essential part of the transport system, just not in the huge numbers we have today. Black cabs account for a good 70% of traffic in central London, and a lot of cab journeys could easily and quickly be undertaken by public transport. Many people take a taxi simply because it's the lazy option. They don't have to do any thinking, and their company picks up part of the bill. The other part of the bill is picked up by Londoners, who pay the price of living in a congested, polluted and dangerous city.
I'll be an interesting excercise in finding out whether the city can cope with a reduction in the amount of roadspace given over to general motor traffic. My prediction is that anyone who is sensible and can avoid London roads will do so. People will have to think more carefully about their travel plans, which is no bad thing, but business will likely continue pretty much as usual.
Barclays Cycle Hire - Update
There are various reports of 'teething problems' with London's cycle hire scheme.
The bikes seem OK if rather heavy, but the docking stations and billing system seem to be responsible for a lot of issues. The docking stations, you would have thought, would have been debugged given that they've been used in the Canadian scheme. It is clear that the whole system has not been adequately tested.
The online map finally has the docking stations marked however.
Another thing that is missing is the users. I saw just one hirer today. Now, I don't want to be a glass-half-empty person, but I couldn't help noticing the docking stations are, erm, rather full. TfL are reporting 6000 trips per day. I suppose that could be accounted for by 3000 commuters making 2 trips each per day, which would seem quite feasible. The quiet start won't have been helped by the short period of time (1 week before launch) that was allowed for registration, and no doubt rental numbers will ramp up considerably once casual users are allowed to hire bikes.
The docking stations themselves are rather tucked away. As I noted in a previous post, it's possible to walk some way without seeing a docking station.
You would expect to see them at places like outside Charing Cross Station, Embankment Station, Trafalgar Square, St James's Park, but they're not. There are docking stations quite close to Charing Cross (at Craven St) and Embankment (at Northumberland Avenue), but they don't advertise themselves - you can walk out of any entrance to said station and not know they're there. It's as if the powers that be didn't want to despoil Trafalgar Square or St James's Park with docking stations - as if they're not despoiled by the huge volumes of traffic thundering around.
The most offputting thing must be the almost total lack of cycling facilities. From Northumberland Avenue docking station, you would most likely cycle up Northumberland Avenue or along Victoria Embankment. Both options are pretty unpalatable: heavy traffic and fast-moving where it's not congested, with no cycle lanes. There's no real alternative along the backstreets. Look below at the picture of the Wellington Street docking station, and you'll see a cycle lane. Don't be fooled though, it's only about 20 yards long. At the south end you have the Aldwych and Waterloo Bridge, perhaps the least cycle-friendly location in London. At the north end you have the usual warren of one-way streets with no exceptions for cyclists, and rat-running cabs and vans trying to avoid the main road congestion. I'm still convinced that the Cycle Hire scheme is a Good Thing, and the system glitches are only temporary. It has the potential to introduce lots of people to cycling in London. However, the main reason people don't cycle is safety/traffic fears. If Boris doesn't do something to address the obvious road danger that permeates even what should be the quiet back streets of the capital, that potential will never be realized.
Above: Wellington Street. A couple of helpful cycle-hire officials were standing by to assist and answer the dumb-ass questions of passers-by.
Above: Rather full docking station at Craven Street. You'll notice that ironically cycling is not permitted here, which is why the law-abiding cyclist is walking his (non-hire) bike.
Above: A rather full Northumberland Avenue docking station...
The bikes seem OK if rather heavy, but the docking stations and billing system seem to be responsible for a lot of issues. The docking stations, you would have thought, would have been debugged given that they've been used in the Canadian scheme. It is clear that the whole system has not been adequately tested.
The online map finally has the docking stations marked however.
Another thing that is missing is the users. I saw just one hirer today. Now, I don't want to be a glass-half-empty person, but I couldn't help noticing the docking stations are, erm, rather full. TfL are reporting 6000 trips per day. I suppose that could be accounted for by 3000 commuters making 2 trips each per day, which would seem quite feasible. The quiet start won't have been helped by the short period of time (1 week before launch) that was allowed for registration, and no doubt rental numbers will ramp up considerably once casual users are allowed to hire bikes.
The docking stations themselves are rather tucked away. As I noted in a previous post, it's possible to walk some way without seeing a docking station.
You would expect to see them at places like outside Charing Cross Station, Embankment Station, Trafalgar Square, St James's Park, but they're not. There are docking stations quite close to Charing Cross (at Craven St) and Embankment (at Northumberland Avenue), but they don't advertise themselves - you can walk out of any entrance to said station and not know they're there. It's as if the powers that be didn't want to despoil Trafalgar Square or St James's Park with docking stations - as if they're not despoiled by the huge volumes of traffic thundering around.
The most offputting thing must be the almost total lack of cycling facilities. From Northumberland Avenue docking station, you would most likely cycle up Northumberland Avenue or along Victoria Embankment. Both options are pretty unpalatable: heavy traffic and fast-moving where it's not congested, with no cycle lanes. There's no real alternative along the backstreets. Look below at the picture of the Wellington Street docking station, and you'll see a cycle lane. Don't be fooled though, it's only about 20 yards long. At the south end you have the Aldwych and Waterloo Bridge, perhaps the least cycle-friendly location in London. At the north end you have the usual warren of one-way streets with no exceptions for cyclists, and rat-running cabs and vans trying to avoid the main road congestion. I'm still convinced that the Cycle Hire scheme is a Good Thing, and the system glitches are only temporary. It has the potential to introduce lots of people to cycling in London. However, the main reason people don't cycle is safety/traffic fears. If Boris doesn't do something to address the obvious road danger that permeates even what should be the quiet back streets of the capital, that potential will never be realized.
Above: Wellington Street. A couple of helpful cycle-hire officials were standing by to assist and answer the dumb-ass questions of passers-by.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)