At last the Government are encouraging cycling - not, of course, by making conditions for cyclists any better, but by making the alternatives worse.
The Tube suffered huge delays as an overtime ban by maintenance staff as part of an ongoing job cuts dispute.
Meanwhile, the Government is set to remove for 2 years the mainline rail fare price cap which may lead to a 20% fare increase. The DfT is also expected to confirm on Wednesday that subsidies to the train companies, currently running at more than £800 million a year, will be cut by a third over the next four years.
Monday, October 18, 2010
New LCC CEO
A new London Cycling Campaign CEO has been appointed . He is Ashok Sinha, formerly director of Stop Climate Chaos.
He appears to have a reasonable track record in campaigning. I hope he can shake LCC out of its complacency and get it punching its weight again.
He appears to have a reasonable track record in campaigning. I hope he can shake LCC out of its complacency and get it punching its weight again.
Merton Pavement Parking
Merton have an unofficial policy of tolerating pavement parking in certain roads. I have that on good authority, but it's also obvious to anyone who walks along Lower Downs Road (below) or Arterberry Road, to give two examples.
This practice tends to start if you have a lot of traffic along a narrow road where parking is allowed. Vehicles come from opposite directions and try to sequeeze past each other. Inevitably, you get minor scrapes and collisions with parked vehicles. Word gets around the neighborhood and one or two people start parking with one tyre on the kerb, to give their pride and joy a little extra protection. Everyone else who parks in the road has to follow suit, or their vehicle will stick out into the traffic flow and be more vulnerable. But this widens the road, which increases vehicles speeds. If it becomes clear the council aren't enforcing against pavement parking, rather than park with one tyre on the pavement, vehicles will then start to occupy more and more of the pavement in their retreat from the 'danger zone'. So you have the situation you see above, where an 8-foot pavement has become a 4-foot pavement.
Now imagine you're a mum with a baby in a buggy and another young child walking. If the vehicle above has to reverse to get out of its parking space, they won't see a child that is close to the rear of the vehicle. Think if you're sending your little sweetheart to school at the nearby Dundonald Primary. If your child is walking on their own to school, they will face the twin hazards of vehicles manoeuvring on and off the pavement, and because children are forced to walk in a narrow corridor close to the garden walls with the parked cars on the other side, it will be difficult for cars in driveways to see them.
Now if Lower Downs Road were a major route, the current situation might be understandable. But the bottleneck is the tunnel under the railway, which is strictly single-lane. So having a nice wide road simply enables vehicles to get to the bottleneck quicker, where everyone gets very cross because it's a single lane where no-one has priority. What also happens on a regular basis is an overheight idiot get stuck in the tunnel causing chaos. Lower Downs Road was never designed for high volumes of traffic.Merton Council have allowed it to become a rat-run between Kingston Road and Worple Road to the detriment of the local community.
So what are they going to do about it? Merton Council are investigating punching a hole through the railway embankment, making a new tunnel to improve conditions for pedestrians 'and cyclists'. This would cost a fortune, and while it would improve conditions for pedestrians for about 10 yards, they will still have to walk along a busy rat-run with a footway unpleasantly narrowed by parked cars. It certainly won't do anything for cycling as cyclists will have to leave and rejoin the main carriageway at either end of the tunnel. I swear to you - Merton Council don't live in the real world. Thank goodness they'll have less of our money to waste in the coming years.
Now imagine you're a mum with a baby in a buggy and another young child walking. If the vehicle above has to reverse to get out of its parking space, they won't see a child that is close to the rear of the vehicle. Think if you're sending your little sweetheart to school at the nearby Dundonald Primary. If your child is walking on their own to school, they will face the twin hazards of vehicles manoeuvring on and off the pavement, and because children are forced to walk in a narrow corridor close to the garden walls with the parked cars on the other side, it will be difficult for cars in driveways to see them.
Now if Lower Downs Road were a major route, the current situation might be understandable. But the bottleneck is the tunnel under the railway, which is strictly single-lane. So having a nice wide road simply enables vehicles to get to the bottleneck quicker, where everyone gets very cross because it's a single lane where no-one has priority. What also happens on a regular basis is an overheight idiot get stuck in the tunnel causing chaos. Lower Downs Road was never designed for high volumes of traffic.Merton Council have allowed it to become a rat-run between Kingston Road and Worple Road to the detriment of the local community.
So what are they going to do about it? Merton Council are investigating punching a hole through the railway embankment, making a new tunnel to improve conditions for pedestrians 'and cyclists'. This would cost a fortune, and while it would improve conditions for pedestrians for about 10 yards, they will still have to walk along a busy rat-run with a footway unpleasantly narrowed by parked cars. It certainly won't do anything for cycling as cyclists will have to leave and rejoin the main carriageway at either end of the tunnel. I swear to you - Merton Council don't live in the real world. Thank goodness they'll have less of our money to waste in the coming years.
Sunday, October 17, 2010
EXCLUSIVE: London Assembly Transport Committee - Cycle Superhighways
For some reason the second half of the London Assembly Transport Committee meeting on 12 Oct 2010 hasn't been widely reported, so I'm claiming an 'exclusive'. The first half of the meeting dealt with the Cycle Hire scheme. The second half, which I will cover here, deals with the Cycle Superhighways.
The meeting allowed various groups interested in the Cycle Superhighways to give feedback to the Committee. I'll give you highlights of what happened, then some analysis.
Highlights:
Cyclists were given some things to look forward to: 25% of CSH#8 will be mandatory cycle lanes, and Southwark are "looking at a 20mph zone" along CSH#7.
Gina Harkell, who is the cycling officer for Waltham Forest and representing the Borough Cycling Officers' Group, landed some telling blows. She said that routing of the CSHs is a big issue: boroughs are very concerned about the routes and feel local knowledge is not being used. She continued, saying that the CSHs are not giving that much more space to cyclists. Cycists are not given priority at junctions, or special signals; there are parking and loading problems. Some of the opportunities to make the routes really safe are not being taken.
TfL gave a couple of examples of where they had given roadspace over to cyclists or improved the existing route (Kennington, Stockwell, Cable St). Oliver Schick of LCC countered, saying "Cable St is not by any stretch of the imagination a high-quality cycle route. It is a one-way rat-run". Jenny Jones (Green Party) also weighed in saying Stockwell is still an extremely frightening junction especially if you’re not in the ASL – you have to cross 2 lanes of traffic to get to the cycle lane.
Jenny Jones pointed out that to get to 5% share (the Mayor's target), 1.5M journeys/day are needed, and based on TfL's figures, we won’t get there with CSH and cycle hire. Outer boroughs are no longer getting ring-fenced money. Gina pointed out that the boroughs had been getting 500K/year for a long, long time, but "that [investment] will stop now – the ring-fenced money was absolutely crucial to it...When it comes to the crunch, a lot of boroughs will not prioritize cycling.”
TfL said they didn’t bring the CSHs into central London because there is a huge dispersal of journeys in the centre. The are not taking the bike grid idea any further at this stage.Gina said “If we want to get up to 20% cycling trips as in Holland, we need to think in a much more open, different and radical way. It would be really nice if one of these routes could offer a serious alternative to the motor car."
Post-Match Analysis
Listening to the meeting, you get the distinct impression that TfL think they've done a great job, and really gone out of their way to accomodate cyclists. What is really telling is that the three examples they gave of their largesse (Cable St, Stockwell, Kennington) were attacked by other speakers as being not nearly good enough.
TfL used the words "where possible" repeatedly, and talked about the need to 'balance' transport modes. At that word - balance - I'd heard enough. The word 'balance' implies a compromise between two conflicting priotities. Cycling gets fitted in if there's space left after the other modes have been accomodated. As soon as there are tough decisions to be made, cycle facilities disappear. That's why at junctions you'll find a small, very narrow advisory cycle lane which is too short and usually blocked, and an ASL that is often blocked. I struggle to think of anywhere in London where the safety or convenience of cyclists has ever taken priority over motor traffic, except at the Stockwell Gyratory where they removed one general traffic lane. Yet despite this being the jewel in TfL's crown, Jenny Jones pointed out they've not even solved the problem, which is that the junction is still dangerous and intimidating in both directions, although slighly less so northbound.
My view is the route of CSH7 is the about worst you could pick. It is one of the busiest and most polluted roads in London. Motor traffic can't be routed off it and there is no chance of widening it. Fixing this road to be safe for cyclists is impossible without reallocating roadspace. Why not pick quieter roads? Even where TfL could have benefitted cyclists without major changes, by extending parking, loading and bus lane restrictions, they've failed to do so. They've failed to put in mandatory cycle lanes, they've mostly failed to put in junction treatments. Yet the CSHs are supposed to be spearheading a cycling revolution. CSH7 is better than it used to be, but it's not good enough and it's certainly not £10M better.
For me, LCC's contribution was disappointing. I was expecting Oliver Schick to come armed with a bandolier of "what's wrong with the CSHs" and give TfL both barrels. Thankfully Gina Harkell had a bit more ammunition.
It is pretty clear that TfL don't accept they have a problem. They are institutionally car-centric. Listening to them protest about what good they've done for cycling is like listening to an alcoholic say they don't have a drink problem. They don't know what they're doing. They don't understand that a cycle route is only as safe as its most dangerous part. If you fix one part of the Stockwell Gyratory, that doesn't make CSH7 safe any more than putting on lipstick makes me Miss World.
Listening to this meeting was rather like watching England play football at the world cup. A bunch of players with not enough commitment just about scraping through the first round, only to get soundly beaten (in terms of modal share) by the Germans. We can't even aspire to compete against the Dutch.
Which brings me on to my 'Player Ratings'.
Gina Harkell (Steven Gerrard). Committed and enthusiatic, ignored the boss's orders. Not afraid of a tackle.
TfL (Wayne Rooney). Poor attitude. No end result. Too many other interests. Can't understand why the fans are moaning.
Jenny Jones (Ashley Cole): At times threatening on the attack.
LCC (Frank Lampard): Occasional attacking spark, but overall, much too quiet. Disappointing.
(Not much of a contribution from the other players.)
Here is the link to the video of proceedings.
The meeting allowed various groups interested in the Cycle Superhighways to give feedback to the Committee. I'll give you highlights of what happened, then some analysis.
Highlights:
Cyclists were given some things to look forward to: 25% of CSH#8 will be mandatory cycle lanes, and Southwark are "looking at a 20mph zone" along CSH#7.
Gina Harkell, who is the cycling officer for Waltham Forest and representing the Borough Cycling Officers' Group, landed some telling blows. She said that routing of the CSHs is a big issue: boroughs are very concerned about the routes and feel local knowledge is not being used. She continued, saying that the CSHs are not giving that much more space to cyclists. Cycists are not given priority at junctions, or special signals; there are parking and loading problems. Some of the opportunities to make the routes really safe are not being taken.
TfL gave a couple of examples of where they had given roadspace over to cyclists or improved the existing route (Kennington, Stockwell, Cable St). Oliver Schick of LCC countered, saying "Cable St is not by any stretch of the imagination a high-quality cycle route. It is a one-way rat-run". Jenny Jones (Green Party) also weighed in saying Stockwell is still an extremely frightening junction especially if you’re not in the ASL – you have to cross 2 lanes of traffic to get to the cycle lane.
Jenny Jones pointed out that to get to 5% share (the Mayor's target), 1.5M journeys/day are needed, and based on TfL's figures, we won’t get there with CSH and cycle hire. Outer boroughs are no longer getting ring-fenced money. Gina pointed out that the boroughs had been getting 500K/year for a long, long time, but "that [investment] will stop now – the ring-fenced money was absolutely crucial to it...When it comes to the crunch, a lot of boroughs will not prioritize cycling.”
TfL said they didn’t bring the CSHs into central London because there is a huge dispersal of journeys in the centre. The are not taking the bike grid idea any further at this stage.Gina said “If we want to get up to 20% cycling trips as in Holland, we need to think in a much more open, different and radical way. It would be really nice if one of these routes could offer a serious alternative to the motor car."
Post-Match Analysis
Listening to the meeting, you get the distinct impression that TfL think they've done a great job, and really gone out of their way to accomodate cyclists. What is really telling is that the three examples they gave of their largesse (Cable St, Stockwell, Kennington) were attacked by other speakers as being not nearly good enough.
TfL used the words "where possible" repeatedly, and talked about the need to 'balance' transport modes. At that word - balance - I'd heard enough. The word 'balance' implies a compromise between two conflicting priotities. Cycling gets fitted in if there's space left after the other modes have been accomodated. As soon as there are tough decisions to be made, cycle facilities disappear. That's why at junctions you'll find a small, very narrow advisory cycle lane which is too short and usually blocked, and an ASL that is often blocked. I struggle to think of anywhere in London where the safety or convenience of cyclists has ever taken priority over motor traffic, except at the Stockwell Gyratory where they removed one general traffic lane. Yet despite this being the jewel in TfL's crown, Jenny Jones pointed out they've not even solved the problem, which is that the junction is still dangerous and intimidating in both directions, although slighly less so northbound.
My view is the route of CSH7 is the about worst you could pick. It is one of the busiest and most polluted roads in London. Motor traffic can't be routed off it and there is no chance of widening it. Fixing this road to be safe for cyclists is impossible without reallocating roadspace. Why not pick quieter roads? Even where TfL could have benefitted cyclists without major changes, by extending parking, loading and bus lane restrictions, they've failed to do so. They've failed to put in mandatory cycle lanes, they've mostly failed to put in junction treatments. Yet the CSHs are supposed to be spearheading a cycling revolution. CSH7 is better than it used to be, but it's not good enough and it's certainly not £10M better.
For me, LCC's contribution was disappointing. I was expecting Oliver Schick to come armed with a bandolier of "what's wrong with the CSHs" and give TfL both barrels. Thankfully Gina Harkell had a bit more ammunition.
It is pretty clear that TfL don't accept they have a problem. They are institutionally car-centric. Listening to them protest about what good they've done for cycling is like listening to an alcoholic say they don't have a drink problem. They don't know what they're doing. They don't understand that a cycle route is only as safe as its most dangerous part. If you fix one part of the Stockwell Gyratory, that doesn't make CSH7 safe any more than putting on lipstick makes me Miss World.
Listening to this meeting was rather like watching England play football at the world cup. A bunch of players with not enough commitment just about scraping through the first round, only to get soundly beaten (in terms of modal share) by the Germans. We can't even aspire to compete against the Dutch.
Which brings me on to my 'Player Ratings'.
Gina Harkell (Steven Gerrard). Committed and enthusiatic, ignored the boss's orders. Not afraid of a tackle.
TfL (Wayne Rooney). Poor attitude. No end result. Too many other interests. Can't understand why the fans are moaning.
Jenny Jones (Ashley Cole): At times threatening on the attack.
LCC (Frank Lampard): Occasional attacking spark, but overall, much too quiet. Disappointing.
(Not much of a contribution from the other players.)
Here is the link to the video of proceedings.
Friday, October 15, 2010
RIP Cycling England
It's official - Cycling England will be killed off. While I've blogged before about the problems that can be caused by the number of different organizations involved in funding UK cycling and the lack of clear responsibility for outcomes, things can always get worse.
Norman Baker, minister responsible for cycling, said "This new Coaltion Government is firmly committed to cycling. That is why it is expressly referred to in the Coalition Agreement...We want to give more power and more flexibility to local authorities as we strongly believe that they know best what is right for their communities."
The trouble is, Cycling England funds are being transferred into a Local Sustainable Transport fund. This could all get spent on modes other than cycling, and in any case, we don't know what the funding level will be. While claiming to be 'committed to cycling', the Coalition is abdicating its responsibility. Local authorities like Merton are arguably the worst people to put in charge of cycling. They are inefficient, they lack the vision and specialist expertise, their highways departments have a car-centric culture and their dismal past record on cycling speaks for itself: lots of money spent and precious little to show for it. Also, cycle journeys don't stop at local authority borders. If Merton were to be suddenly transformed into a cycling-friendly area, conditions in surrounding boroughs would still deter people from cycling.
It is very difficult to see how cycling can be improved without strong leadership at a national level. The incentives are all wrong at the local level. Local authorities have little control over, or responsibility for, NHS costs that arise from poor road safety, sedentary lifestyles, CO2 emissions or pollution. Local politics is dominated by the level of council tax, by schools, by how often the bins are emptied and how much it costs people to park their cars. Cycling doesn't even register on the electoral radar of most councillors, and some are openly hostile to it. Therefore, why should they spend even a penny on it, especially when other budgets are being squeezed? The Local Sustainable Transport fund may provide an opportunity for creative accounting. What's to stop councillors to use such funds for items that are currently under the highways budget?
Compare and contrast with High Speed Rail or electric car infrastructure. Neither could possibly succeed if they were left to local politicians, because they cross local borders, affect a large area and the costs outweigh the perceived benefits at the local level. They would clearly fall victim to NIMBYism. Can you imagine local high-speed rail, or an electric car scheme where the only charging points are in one borough? That's why there are strong national policies (and plenty of money) for them. So how exactly is cycling different?
Norman Baker, minister responsible for cycling, said "This new Coaltion Government is firmly committed to cycling. That is why it is expressly referred to in the Coalition Agreement...We want to give more power and more flexibility to local authorities as we strongly believe that they know best what is right for their communities."
The trouble is, Cycling England funds are being transferred into a Local Sustainable Transport fund. This could all get spent on modes other than cycling, and in any case, we don't know what the funding level will be. While claiming to be 'committed to cycling', the Coalition is abdicating its responsibility. Local authorities like Merton are arguably the worst people to put in charge of cycling. They are inefficient, they lack the vision and specialist expertise, their highways departments have a car-centric culture and their dismal past record on cycling speaks for itself: lots of money spent and precious little to show for it. Also, cycle journeys don't stop at local authority borders. If Merton were to be suddenly transformed into a cycling-friendly area, conditions in surrounding boroughs would still deter people from cycling.
It is very difficult to see how cycling can be improved without strong leadership at a national level. The incentives are all wrong at the local level. Local authorities have little control over, or responsibility for, NHS costs that arise from poor road safety, sedentary lifestyles, CO2 emissions or pollution. Local politics is dominated by the level of council tax, by schools, by how often the bins are emptied and how much it costs people to park their cars. Cycling doesn't even register on the electoral radar of most councillors, and some are openly hostile to it. Therefore, why should they spend even a penny on it, especially when other budgets are being squeezed? The Local Sustainable Transport fund may provide an opportunity for creative accounting. What's to stop councillors to use such funds for items that are currently under the highways budget?
Compare and contrast with High Speed Rail or electric car infrastructure. Neither could possibly succeed if they were left to local politicians, because they cross local borders, affect a large area and the costs outweigh the perceived benefits at the local level. They would clearly fall victim to NIMBYism. Can you imagine local high-speed rail, or an electric car scheme where the only charging points are in one borough? That's why there are strong national policies (and plenty of money) for them. So how exactly is cycling different?
London Air Pollution
Boris Johnson has long had a very relaxed attitude towards air pollution in London, which could prove both expensive and embarrassing, if London's lousy air quality attracts EU fines or causes action to be necessary at the 2012 Olympics.
The worst single type of vehicle for air pollution is the black cab. The cab is a London icon, but it's a vehicle that was designed in the last century when air pollution was less well-understood. Johnson has made a bad situation worse by cancelling the 6-monthly emissions check for black cabs.
However, he's now considering a new 'very low emission zone', which may apply to all vehicles, including black cabs. There wouldn't seem much point in it not applying to black cabs, given that they account for 35% of tailpipe emissions. But because the taxi fleet is rather old, many vehicles would need to be retrofitted with emissions control equipment to comply. According to London Taxi Drivers Association general secretary Bob Oddy "this would simply force cabs off the road." It won't, of course. Drivers of older cabs will need to get a newer vehicle or get the retrofit, but not many will be quitting their career.
However, if London is to 'green' its transport system, it does need fewer cabs. The fact is that the London taxi is the least 'green' transport mode. Each cab weighs around 2 tonnes, yet the typical load factor (number of passengers being carried) is around one passenger per cab. Consequently, emissions of all types (CO2, NOx, particulates) per passenger are an order of magnitude greater than other transport types except for private cars. In central London, black cabs account for around 70% of traffic. Because of the congestion they cause by their sheer numbers, and by their presence in bus lanes, they damage the efficiency of 'greener' types of surface transport (buses and cycles). Buses are slowed by congestion, which makes them less attractive and increases their emissions. Traffic levels, and the fact that there are virtually no low-traffic routes in central London, means many people are too scared to cycle. It's time the balance of priorities changed.
The worst single type of vehicle for air pollution is the black cab. The cab is a London icon, but it's a vehicle that was designed in the last century when air pollution was less well-understood. Johnson has made a bad situation worse by cancelling the 6-monthly emissions check for black cabs.
However, he's now considering a new 'very low emission zone', which may apply to all vehicles, including black cabs. There wouldn't seem much point in it not applying to black cabs, given that they account for 35% of tailpipe emissions. But because the taxi fleet is rather old, many vehicles would need to be retrofitted with emissions control equipment to comply. According to London Taxi Drivers Association general secretary Bob Oddy "this would simply force cabs off the road." It won't, of course. Drivers of older cabs will need to get a newer vehicle or get the retrofit, but not many will be quitting their career.
However, if London is to 'green' its transport system, it does need fewer cabs. The fact is that the London taxi is the least 'green' transport mode. Each cab weighs around 2 tonnes, yet the typical load factor (number of passengers being carried) is around one passenger per cab. Consequently, emissions of all types (CO2, NOx, particulates) per passenger are an order of magnitude greater than other transport types except for private cars. In central London, black cabs account for around 70% of traffic. Because of the congestion they cause by their sheer numbers, and by their presence in bus lanes, they damage the efficiency of 'greener' types of surface transport (buses and cycles). Buses are slowed by congestion, which makes them less attractive and increases their emissions. Traffic levels, and the fact that there are virtually no low-traffic routes in central London, means many people are too scared to cycle. It's time the balance of priorities changed.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Boris Bike Review
I've been meaning to post my thoughts on the Cycle Hire bikes but not got round to it until now. So here goes:
Undocking the bike is simple enough. Stick the key in the slot, wait for the green light and then give the bike a good hard pull. If it seems stuck, chances are you're not pulling hard enough. Docking is the reverse operation: a good hard push and the bike clunks into place, and you get the green light.
The saddle adjusts easily enough via the quick-release lever. No other adjustments are possible though.
There's a luggage carrier on the front that works well and I rather like. My 25-litre rucksack fitted in just fine, and seemed secure with the bungee cord attached.
The controls are simple enough. Front and rear brake levers on the bars, and a twist-grip for the 3-speed hub gear. There's also a bell underneath the left grip, operated by a thumb-wheel. It's a bit fiddly and on one bike didn't work at all. Front and rear lights come on automatically courtesy of a dynamo hub. The rear lights are rather too low down and the front light twinkles but I suspect doesn't make the bike very conspicuous to drivers. There's a helpful notice on the middle of the bars: "Watch for left-turning vehicles".
The brakes are drums inside the hubs. This makes them difficult to damage. However, they cannot be adjusted by the user, and seem to have a tendency to bind. One bike had a very weak front brake. That's a serious safety issue. On other bikes, the brakes worked with a heavy squeeze of the lever, but had no real 'bite'. However, you're rarely going fast enough for braking to be an issue. The drivetrain and tyres are all well-enclosed, so there's little chance of arriving mud-spattered or oily.
The gearing is low. I found little use for the bottom two gears, and top is only good for maybe 12-13MPH before you're wasting energy spinning the pedals too fast. Even downhill, the bike seems determined to resist anything more than a sedate pace. Getting your tie to blow over your shoulder like the cartoon Boris would require a significant headwind. A bit of a change of mindset is needed if you're used to riding a normal bike: you have to relax and take it slow. Until I figured this out, I found myself using a surprising amount of energy to no good effect and getting quite sweaty even on a cold day. I think there is a safety issue in the lack of speed. When I ride, I like to get ahead of the traffic and 'take the lane'. That style of riding is not really possible on this bike. On one occasion I found myself wanting to make a right-turn, but found I couldn't accelerate fast enough to get into the right-hand lane.
The bike rides more like a Rolls-Royce than a Ferrari. It's unfazed by rough surfaces, potholes or kerbs, and rides serenely over pretty much anything, although it's rather unsteady on loose gravel. The bike is very heavy at 23kg. For comparison, your average road bike tips the scales at 9 or 10kg, and even a steel-framed full touring bike like the Dawes Galaxy is 14kg or so. So this is like riding two bikes at once. I've seen some reviews claim you don't notice the weight. This is rubbish. It's not immediately apparent because the gearing is so low, but in top gear you're aware of the mass on even the slightest incline. The weight seems low down, so the handling is quite stable.
For me, an average-height rider, it was difficult to find a comfortable riding position. The bars are too close, so you either have to lean back or adopt an 'elbows out' position. The saddle I found fine, although on some bikes it seemed softer than others.
Because of the charging structure, you need to keep your journeys below half an hour to avoid usage charges. This means that if you don't know your end-point, you have to start worrying about finding a docking station 20-25 minutes into your ride. It's possible to undock another bike five minutes after docking your previous one, if you want to dodge the usage charges on a longer ride.
There seems to be no real cameraderie among Boris Bikers. My salutes were met with stony-faced stares. That's Londoners for you. Boris Bikers are a diverse bunch - suited business people, casually-dressed folk, some have helmets and high-viz gear, some are young and some old, and both genders are represented although I think more men than women.
In summary, if you don't have your own bike in town, this is the next best way to get around. Yes, the bike is a big blue barge. Yes, the weight and the riding position would be annoying on a longer ride, but it's fine for short journeys, which is what it's intended for. The lack of acceleration and top-end speed is annoying and could get you into trouble, but you can take this into account when you ride. It's a great alternative to tube or bus travel, being usually faster than both and more fun. A normal bike offers a much better riding experience, but for one-way journeys or where you don't have your bike in town, it's fine, and you don't have to worry about lights or locks, or the Friday-night-out dilemma of whether to risk overnight bike theft or ride home a teeny bit the worse for wear.
Undocking the bike is simple enough. Stick the key in the slot, wait for the green light and then give the bike a good hard pull. If it seems stuck, chances are you're not pulling hard enough. Docking is the reverse operation: a good hard push and the bike clunks into place, and you get the green light.
The saddle adjusts easily enough via the quick-release lever. No other adjustments are possible though.
There's a luggage carrier on the front that works well and I rather like. My 25-litre rucksack fitted in just fine, and seemed secure with the bungee cord attached.
The controls are simple enough. Front and rear brake levers on the bars, and a twist-grip for the 3-speed hub gear. There's also a bell underneath the left grip, operated by a thumb-wheel. It's a bit fiddly and on one bike didn't work at all. Front and rear lights come on automatically courtesy of a dynamo hub. The rear lights are rather too low down and the front light twinkles but I suspect doesn't make the bike very conspicuous to drivers. There's a helpful notice on the middle of the bars: "Watch for left-turning vehicles".
The brakes are drums inside the hubs. This makes them difficult to damage. However, they cannot be adjusted by the user, and seem to have a tendency to bind. One bike had a very weak front brake. That's a serious safety issue. On other bikes, the brakes worked with a heavy squeeze of the lever, but had no real 'bite'. However, you're rarely going fast enough for braking to be an issue. The drivetrain and tyres are all well-enclosed, so there's little chance of arriving mud-spattered or oily.
The gearing is low. I found little use for the bottom two gears, and top is only good for maybe 12-13MPH before you're wasting energy spinning the pedals too fast. Even downhill, the bike seems determined to resist anything more than a sedate pace. Getting your tie to blow over your shoulder like the cartoon Boris would require a significant headwind. A bit of a change of mindset is needed if you're used to riding a normal bike: you have to relax and take it slow. Until I figured this out, I found myself using a surprising amount of energy to no good effect and getting quite sweaty even on a cold day. I think there is a safety issue in the lack of speed. When I ride, I like to get ahead of the traffic and 'take the lane'. That style of riding is not really possible on this bike. On one occasion I found myself wanting to make a right-turn, but found I couldn't accelerate fast enough to get into the right-hand lane.
The bike rides more like a Rolls-Royce than a Ferrari. It's unfazed by rough surfaces, potholes or kerbs, and rides serenely over pretty much anything, although it's rather unsteady on loose gravel. The bike is very heavy at 23kg. For comparison, your average road bike tips the scales at 9 or 10kg, and even a steel-framed full touring bike like the Dawes Galaxy is 14kg or so. So this is like riding two bikes at once. I've seen some reviews claim you don't notice the weight. This is rubbish. It's not immediately apparent because the gearing is so low, but in top gear you're aware of the mass on even the slightest incline. The weight seems low down, so the handling is quite stable.
For me, an average-height rider, it was difficult to find a comfortable riding position. The bars are too close, so you either have to lean back or adopt an 'elbows out' position. The saddle I found fine, although on some bikes it seemed softer than others.
Because of the charging structure, you need to keep your journeys below half an hour to avoid usage charges. This means that if you don't know your end-point, you have to start worrying about finding a docking station 20-25 minutes into your ride. It's possible to undock another bike five minutes after docking your previous one, if you want to dodge the usage charges on a longer ride.
There seems to be no real cameraderie among Boris Bikers. My salutes were met with stony-faced stares. That's Londoners for you. Boris Bikers are a diverse bunch - suited business people, casually-dressed folk, some have helmets and high-viz gear, some are young and some old, and both genders are represented although I think more men than women.
In summary, if you don't have your own bike in town, this is the next best way to get around. Yes, the bike is a big blue barge. Yes, the weight and the riding position would be annoying on a longer ride, but it's fine for short journeys, which is what it's intended for. The lack of acceleration and top-end speed is annoying and could get you into trouble, but you can take this into account when you ride. It's a great alternative to tube or bus travel, being usually faster than both and more fun. A normal bike offers a much better riding experience, but for one-way journeys or where you don't have your bike in town, it's fine, and you don't have to worry about lights or locks, or the Friday-night-out dilemma of whether to risk overnight bike theft or ride home a teeny bit the worse for wear.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)