# London shall change the face of cycling in the UK



## chap (7 Feb 2010)

​
The London Cycle Hire Scheme will mark the tipping point which shall cause its Zone 1 - 3 citizens to discard (or severely reduce usage of) the car, and seek the bicycle as a viable contender. This in turn shall extend to better cyclist provisions across the capital, and then, by extension, the country!

The London Cycle Hire Scheme is fast approaching, and anyone who has followed the Velib scheme shall be aware of what is up for grabs. I, as pointed out in many of my posts, am extremely excited about the prospects this scheme may bring, not only for the capital and the country.

Currently, the UK has 3 well established cycle cities / towns:


Oxford
Cambridge
York
Whilst, these places are fantastic in their own right, they are not viewed as comparable to most run towns and cities. Indeed, in many places, the cycling provisions are sporadic, and badly thought out. Unfortunately, many of the titled 'Cycling Towns' appear to have taken the money and ran, alas nowhere towards reducing the dependency on car, improving the infrastructure for pedestrians and cyclists, and thus improving the quality of life for its citizens.

London is a different kettle of fish, in parts it is small enough to resemble the local village, but as a whole it is colossal and dwarves any upstart contender in the Nation. Thus, it is the perfect representation for a transportation system in the UK, especially with its legendary congestion issues. There simply is no excuse.

My enthusiasm, stems from the ubiquity, and undeniably positive effect that the Vélib system has had on Paris, during a series of visits over the years, I have noticed driers transmogrify from crazy kamikaze like lunatics, to slightly crazy - bike friendly - drivers. This is on the strength of well-thought planning, a sound and progressive mayor, and thus, as a result the Vélib scheme.

The uptake has been phenomenal, it was calculated that a minority accounted for the majority of the road usage, thus changes were made:


Bus lanes were widened to accommodate the bus & cyclist
Pedestrianised zones were created
More cycle lanes were defined, and these are meaningful ones which span more than 10 meters
That and the scheme which was implemented, to great success. I believe the same can be true for London. In spite of the incompetence of many that should have known better, cycling has taken off to a very noticeable extent here. The LCC appear to be doing a fine job, and many districts are catching on including Camden, and even Westminster. 

As it stands, the UK are famous for brands such as Brompton, Pashley, and Bobbins, thus the culture was here, and still it pervades the car driven age - in parts. The whole cycle chic movement has a good base in the UK, primarily London; and there are established bike cultures, such as the fixies from the East, the Islington chicness, and those commited cyclists in Lambeth. 

Then we have schemes such as the South West Trains Brompton Rental scheme, the proposed (albeit uninspiring) Cycle highways, the LCC commuter train, and the actual rental scheme itself. Therefore, is there any reason why this scheme should fail?

My argument is hinging on the popularity of the London Cycle scheme, which shall at last cause that 'critical mass' to be reached in which the majority recognise that cycling is the best option for London commuting (or multi-modal transport.) This, I believe shall be extrapolated towards better schemes across the country, taking inspiration from the capital.

In short, come May, London shall be noted as a cycling capital, and what better tribute to the Olympics than to get a large proportion of its residents, and the nation, back into cycling, something we used to be the leader in. In an age of uncertainty, mass debt, future threats from lack and abuse of natural resources, surely this is the time to promote a sustainable, scalable, and healthy transportation option.

I will be interested to hear your opinions.

LINKS


TfL Feasibility study for London cycle hire scheme - [PDF]
Bike preview - BBC
PIMP MY VELO - Article about effect of Vélib on bicycle shops
Vélib tips & Commentry
TFL London Cycle Scheme
London Cycle Scheme - The Low Down (The Bike Show)
London Cycling Campaign


----------



## gaz (8 Feb 2010)

lack of integration with oyster card = mega fail


----------



## chap (8 Feb 2010)

There have been a lot of set backs. However, your average politician is not interested in the solution, more a quick fix. There is a lot of interest in this scheme, and a lot of cyclists. If that is an easy way to score points then they'll jump on it.

At the moment the prevailing attitude, as sensed by the politicians, is that car drivers don't want this. Thus other than a few platitudes about how we need to cut emission rates, and go green, they'll still support Heathrow Airport extensions and reduced congestion zones.

If this becomes popular, which it shall - after all the Vélib scheme is not set with the actual Metro (or at least to my knowledge) - then more borough politicians shall be accommodating towards expansion into their boroughs. More cyclists will mean that needless deaths caused by HGV vans on ill-suited roads, shall be noted more firmly, and a less cursory attitude will be extended towards feasibility and safety.

The Oyster card already has proven itself as a concept, people know that it works, and your statement pays testement to that fact. Yet, it took time before many people in the outer zones could connect their services with it, in fact I believe that Greenwich has recently gained Oyster compatibility. Likewise, the London Cycle Hire Scheme (they really ought to develop a more catchy name) shall succeed.


----------



## thomas (8 Feb 2010)

I know the bikes are probably awful, but if I went to London I'd happily use the bike to get around. They're free aren't they? Looking at the site it seems there's a £1 initial charge?

That'd probably put me off a bit, as I could walk most places and a tube card is cheap (and easier than trying to navigate to the places that are a bit further away)


----------



## marinyork (8 Feb 2010)

6000 bicycles! Although it sounds great, isn't there the problem that it wills squeeze badly needed normal private cycle parking? 

Anyway I find the scheme interesting as I know one of two people who constantly make excuses for not buying a bicycle or trying one who live in London and the scheme might be the sort of thing to get them to give it a go.

I'd use them if I visited London, and less concerned about the cost than Thomas.

P.S. How does the payment system work, do you have to put your credit card in the side of the bike or slot in 20p coins or what?


----------



## chap (8 Feb 2010)

marinyork said:


> 6000 bicycles! Although it sounds great, isn't there the problem that it wills squeeze badly needed normal private cycle parking?
> 
> Anyway I find the scheme interesting as I know one of two people who constantly make excuses for not buying a bicycle or trying one who live in London and the scheme might be the sort of thing to get them to give it a go.
> 
> ...




Like the Vélib scheme it appears to be credit-card based - a fitting method considering the levels of debt in this country 

From TfL here is a breakdown of the charges:

*Usage charges*

Up to 30 minutes: *Free*
Up to 1 hour: *£1* 
Up to 1 hour and 30 minutes: *£4* 
Up to 2 hours: *£6* 
Up to 2 hours and 30 minutes: *£10* 
Up to 3 hours: * £15* 
Up to 6 hours: *£35* 
Up to 24 hours (maximum usage fee): *£50* 

*Other charges* 
Late return charge £150 
Damage charge Up to £300 
Non-return charge  £300

Source: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/roadusers/cycling/12444.aspx

Related article: http://www.bikebiz.com/news/31544/London-Cycle-Hire-Scheme-will-be-free-for-first-half-hour


----------



## marinyork (8 Feb 2010)

I'd go with that, well very good actually, I expected them to be a lot more greedy, although the rate of the damage/late return worries me, I can imagine an electronic system not docking properly/making a mistake and charging you, that'd put me off a bit. I suppose Londoners with there super swish buses will probably complain of the cost though!

Hmmm wonder if I could cycle from St Pancras to Earl's Court in an hour, hmmm can't remember how far out I got at the 30 and 60 min mark.


----------



## chap (8 Feb 2010)

marinyork said:


> I'd go with that, well very good actually, I expected them to be a lot more greedy, although the rate of the damage/late return worries me, I can imagine an electronic system not docking properly/making a mistake and charging you, that'd put me off a bit. I suppose Londoners with there super swish buses will probably complain of the cost though!
> 
> Hmmm wonder if I could cycle from St Pancras to Earl's Court in an hour, hmmm can't remember how far out I got at the 30 and 60 min mark.




If you couldn't, you could stop for a sandwich halfway, docking the bike, then get another. Therefore, besides the cost of the snack, it's free.

Although do you think that this could have positive ramifications for the way that cycling is dealt with across the country? (or even in London itself)


----------



## marinyork (8 Feb 2010)

How far out does zone 3 go anyway if the scheme ever gets out that far?


----------



## chap (8 Feb 2010)

marinyork said:


> How far out does zone 3 go anyway if the scheme ever gets out that far?



Using Crystal Palace as a random example (it is also on Zone 4) it is about 8.1 miles from St Pancras Int. Station. That is a reasonable commute, yet the scheme has not been extended that far '_Sarf_' yet.

Initially, it shall be confined to Zone 1 (http://www.tfl.gov.uk/roadusers/cycling/12445.aspx) which in itself is an important zone, and one at which many people pass through. Areas such as Camden, Islington, and Lambeth are largely residential thus shall be interesting to watch, as their cycling culture has already grown immensely. 

Plus, if anyone can make use of it for commuting, it will be those at the fringes of Zone 1 such as that district.

The way I see it, the current gulf of funding has gone into establishing the framework, as the scheme succeeds it ought to be easy to scale across London. 

This will certainly be of use in the centre, but shall prove extremely useful to your average Londoner, shopper, and especially to those in the poorer areas.

On this merit, the virtues of cycling should become visibly evident, and local councils should cotton on and implement accordingly.


----------



## marinyork (8 Feb 2010)

chap said:


> If you couldn't, you could stop for a sandwich halfway, docking the bike, then get another. Therefore, besides the cost of the snack, it's free.
> 
> Although do you think that this could have positive ramifications for the way that cycling is dealt with across the country? (or even in London itself)



Yeah, it sounds pretty good to me, it'd have been of great use to me in the past in London.

I'm not sure what effect it'd have on how cycling is dealt with. I would think it might make bigger pots of money for things like the cycling hubs we're getting outside London . The sort of thing it might effect is things like secure cycle parking where they've been very, very arsy about relatively small funds to do these schemes that might have gigantic benefits. Also similar hire schemes elsewhere.

On the other hand I doubt it'll make a blind bit of difference to the bread and butter issues round here like bikes on trams, trains, tram/train, integrated cycle transport, cycle parking, cycle parking in new builds, etc etc etc.


----------



## marinyork (8 Feb 2010)

chap said:


> Using Crystal Palace as a random example (it is also on Zone 4) it is about 8.1 miles from St Pancras Int. Station. That is a reasonable commute, yet the scheme has not been extended that far '_Sarf_' yet.
> 
> Initially, it shall be confined to Zone 1 (http://www.tfl.gov.uk/roadusers/cycling/12445.aspx) which in itself is an important zone, and one at which many people pass through. Areas such as Camden, Islington, and Lambeth are largely residential thus shall be interesting to watch, as their cycling culture has already grown immensely.
> 
> Plus, if anyone can make use of it for commuting, it will be those at the fringes of Zone 1 such as that district.



Not commuting. I'm just asking for purely hypothetical reasons because (a) I'd go out of zone 1 and ( the people I know who might use it, it's not essential that it goes to zone 3 or 4 but it'd be really be an awful lot better if it went to zone 2. I think just zone 1 and those prices have a lot going for it though, I'm really going to pester people to have a go.

P.S. I think other people are generally positive about non-cyclists occasionally using this sort of thing. Charities moan bitterly about these sorts of people.


----------



## chap (8 Feb 2010)

marinyork said:


> Yeah, it sounds pretty good to me, it'd have been of great use to me in the past in London.
> 
> I'm not sure what effect it'd have on how cycling is dealt with. I would think it might make bigger pots of money for things like the cycling hubs we're getting outside London . The sort of thing it might effect is things like secure cycle parking where they've been very, very arsy about relatively small funds to do these schemes that might have gigantic benefits. Also similar hire schemes elsewhere.
> 
> On the other hand I doubt it'll make a blind bit of difference to the bread and butter issues round here like bikes on trams, trains, tram/train, integrated cycle transport, cycle parking, cycle parking in new builds, etc etc etc.



There is a link I posted to an Intelligent Life article (PIMP MY VELO), they mentioned that Bike shops are doing very well because of this Vélib scheme. Notice that the Bicing scheme in Barcelona - which too is popular, operates in a way that only locals can use it - the rational behind this is so that the local bicycle rental companies are not challenged.

Whilst this is ridiculous, the London Cycle Hire scheme has operated more effectively to ensure that the bikes are used for short hops, rather than day treks. This is to also keep the scheme sweet with Bike shops / hire places. As such, there is no reason - considering the cost of owning a car in the City and the reletively low ownership - for bicycles to take off. Afterall, look at the Brompton.

With more people owning bicycles, they shall expect more facilities to cater for them, such as more spaces for parking, better bicycle paths (not the half-arsed excuses we are used to), and overall safer routes.

Any politician worth their salt, would see this as an opportunity to blame the opposition, and jump on the whole Green Britain / Healthy Living train. With this in mind, companies would be hard pressed to continually treat us as 2nd class citizens.

It does all sound like wishful conjecture, although these are taken from examples of what has already happened in many cities, Paris included. Paris is our best bet, as we live in similar conditions - although we pay more. Therefore, with the little that is done, there shall be a noticeable adoption, and if it is improving issues then who is to stand in the way of that?

Paris has a lot of space to admire their buildings and such thus it can be enjoyed from car, yet many claim that bicycle is the only way to go. London, in my opinion outshines its Gallic counterpart, yet does not give space to the buildings at all, there are so many things happening at once that by car the experience is magical yet fleeting, by bike it is a complete emersive experience. If we could just tame the cars, and tackle other dangers (HGV's) then the bicycle would be the vehicle of choice.


----------



## chap (8 Feb 2010)

marinyork said:


> Not commuting. I'm just asking for purely hypothetical reasons because (a) I'd go out of zone 1 and ( the people I know who might use it, it's not essential that it goes to zone 3 or 4 but it'd be really be an awful lot better if it went to zone 2. I think just zone 1 and those prices have a lot going for it though, I'm really going to pester people to have a go.
> 
> P.S. I think other people are generally positive about non-cyclists occasionally using this sort of thing. Charities moan bitterly about these sorts of people.




I understand, although with eventual expansion (like the Oyster card) this should be a short-lived issue.

Generally, I would imagine that the initial scheme would be best suited to:


Commuters within the peak-hours
Tourists from lunch-time on-wards
Shoppers and tourists during the weekend
It is surprising how such simple features can have a profound effect, I recently got a basket for my bike, and to say it is a huge weight off my shoulders is a fact and an under-exaggeration. 

I no longer use the car for shopping. Now imagine what a releif it would be to go shopping on the soon(ish) to be de-congested Oxford Street, without having to worry about sore arms.


----------



## marinyork (8 Feb 2010)

I will look at all the links, but more over time, they are actually a good list, just I'll have thoroughly read it all before the scheme starts and pester power begins . I think the excusemongers I know would give it a go at those prices, quite happily, which is the idea of the scheme! Anything that gets them on the bikes and then makes them buy a bike is good!

As for London, chap, yeah maybe it's right, but cycle politics in London and elsewhere are similar and different. If it made things even slightly easier elsewhere it would be good, a lot of cycle stuff here works on bizarre small pots of money and schemes being strung together, anything outside the box and you have to beg and beg and beg, even if it is 1 sheffield stand.


----------



## marinyork (8 Feb 2010)

chap said:


> It is surprising how such simple features can have a profound effect, I recently got a basket for my bike, and to say it is a huge weight off my shoulders is a fact and an under-exaggeration.
> 
> I no longer use the car for shopping. Now imagine what a releif it would be to go shopping on the soon(ish) to be de-congested Oxford Street, without having to worry about sore arms.



I got a rack recently, I know what you mean. As for Oxford St, I got to experience cycling along there for the first time a while back, it's hilarious doing 8 or 9mph along there . I thought Oxford St was getting pedestrianised though? Anyway I'll let someone else give their say and come back later.


----------



## chap (8 Feb 2010)

marinyork said:


> I will look at all the links, but more over time, they are actually a good list, just I'll have thoroughly read it all before the scheme starts and pester power begins . I think the excusemongers I know would give it a go at those prices, quite happily, which is the idea of the scheme! Anything that gets them on the bikes and then makes them buy a bike is good!
> 
> As for London, chap, yeah maybe it's right, but cycle politics in London and elsewhere are similar and different. If it made things even slightly easier elsewhere it would be good, a lot of cycle stuff here works on bizarre small pots of money and schemes being strung together, anything outside the box and you have to beg and beg and beg, even if it is 1 sheffield stand.




Very true, and I can imagine that certain apathetic council staff may point to the exorbitant costs involved. Fortunately, that's where the smaller districts of London can refute their arguments by stressing it is largely abut infrastructure as opposed to schemes. As for the schemes, that where Blackpool and Cardiff come in 



Cardiff
Blackpool


----------



## GrumpyGregry (8 Feb 2010)

How long do we reckon it will take for 2/3rds of the bikes to go awol. Took Paris 18 months to 'loose' half the fleet according to the operators, and I reckon UK-based scrotes are far more efficient...

I, for one, being a provincial who has to go to London for work and social life will use the scheme more or less regardless of the cost vs tube/bus provided there are bike parks near my mainline station (Victoria) and my various destinations. I've used velibs in Paris, bit scarey to be honest, and the similar scheme in Barcelona, which was a joy.


----------



## thomas (8 Feb 2010)

marinyork said:


> 6000 bicycles! Although it sounds great, isn't there the problem that it wills squeeze badly needed normal private cycle parking?
> 
> Anyway I find the scheme interesting as I know one of two people who constantly make excuses for not buying a bicycle or trying one who live in London and the scheme might be the sort of thing to get them to give it a go.
> 
> ...



It depends, but I'm used to walking and if I got a train up to Waterloo most the places I would visit aren't more than 15 to 20 min away by foot (I'd probably spend just as long trying to use the machine to buy it, locking it up and getting there as it'd take to walk).

I'd probably also be with a friend and to be honest, I'm not sure I'd be able to cope with how I imagine my friends would cycle (gutter hugging, doing about walking pace, lack of awareness, etc).

I would like to try the scheme though, so would certainly use it once.


----------



## dellzeqq (8 Feb 2010)

It may work in Zone 1. If you want to get from Leicester Square to Victoria, a bike, however heavy, has to be the way to go - you can spend five minutes getting down to a tube platform. I fear for the new generation of Velibers when cab drivers work out just who is going to lose the most from this....... 

Ken had hopes that it might work across 32 boroughs, but certain boroughs blocked it, and when all is said and done, London is a suburban city with most people living in two storey houses - there wouldn't be the density of travel to make all the bike stands that you'd have to put in worthwhile.

For both zone 1 and the 'burbs the real key to success is the congeniality of the roads, and that, sadly, depends on constraining the car. It's commuters from zones 4 and out that are clogging up our streets, and I can't see the present mayor doing anything about it. 

I can't really see the relevance to midsized towns (Derby up to Nottingham). I'd have thought that more cycle parking and more congenial streets would be the way to go - only a complete muppet drives to the centre of Oxford or Cheltenham.


----------



## gaz (8 Feb 2010)

i'm not sure i could see anyone cycling one of these to CP. maybe from CP to london a niiiice downhill slope.


----------



## chap (8 Feb 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> It may work in Zone 1. If you want to get from Leicester Square to Victoria, a bike, however heavy, has to be the way to go - you can spend five minutes getting down to a tube platform. I fear for the new generation of Velibers when cab drivers work out just who is going to lose the most from this.......
> 
> Ken had hopes that it might work across 32 boroughs, but certain boroughs blocked it, and when all is said and done, London is a suburban city with most people living in two storey houses - there wouldn't be the density of travel to make all the bike stands that you'd have to put in worthwhile.
> 
> ...



Yes, it is well known that the ambitions of this scheme have been snaffled by a few petty politikers although as with Oyster, this shall grow. There is even less of an issue with expansion since it is the same groups managing the implementation, as opposed to a new company to accomodate under the logistical, and IT implementation.

We have another year before they are updated, but from 2001 census the following can be gleamed:

*Houshold Transportation*
Households without car/van 1130649
Household with 1 car or van 1298481
Household with 2 or more cars/vans 586867

*Travel*
Travel to work by car: 1195140
Travel to work by public transport: 1398746 

Surely from this one can at least indicate that there is a potential market for this. So it does not take certain things into account such as distance, nor even where these people travel to. Although, a lot of wasted and unpleasant time is spent shifting from one platform to another on the tube. In Zone 1, where the main stations of London are (Waterloo, St Pancras/Kings Cross; Victoria; Paddington; Euston; Charing Cross), this would provide a better means of skipping unecessary oft delayed services.

As more people take part on the scheme, which no politician who has invested time with it would let fail, I can imagine that other provisions shall be made. Even if these are not immediately forthcoming, that idea of 'Critical Mass' so often trumpeted by the likes of LCC and CTC ought to be achieved.

There will be the ususal reports of inexperienced cyclists, particularly tourists (or '_illegal _immigrants' as many Daily Mail cabbies would claim). These are the same issues as the Vélib faced - and that Amsterdam does, however drivers adapt. And sooner or later, the Cabbie will find it is not in their interest to intimidate a potential inexperienced cyclists behind the ususal bulk of their belly and polished steel, when the cyclist is on a solid steel machine with good scratchability potential.

Not every town nor city requires a cycle scheme, London will be made a lot better with one as it will not only acknowledges the increasing popularity in the form of transport, but will ease congestion, and coax people who otherwise would have deemed it the preserve of arrogant Lycra-clad egotists to participate and enjoy the marvellous sights around the city.

The idea is for a 'grab and go' model, you pick it up on the street, peddle off to where you desire, then lock it up at the next hub. There really should be no cases of anybody taking this into an underground station, nor into any actual station.

On the subject of stations, St Pancras/Kings Cross, and Euston are wonderfully linked by a cycle path, this could easily extend to Waterloo through Charing Cross, and Paddington. Were this the case, then the commuters prefered model would be established. This could even prompt a '*Green Wave*'!



http://www.copenhagenize.com/2007/10/green-wave.html
http://www.copenhagenize.com/2008/10/green-wave-spreads.html
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/profiles/H.asp


----------



## dellzeqq (8 Feb 2010)

We have a critical mass on some routes already - Greenwich to London Bridge and Colliers Wood to Westminster being the two that come to mind. All that TfL, Johnson and the cycling organisations have to do is to look at what works, look at what doesn't work, and make changes accordingly. Unfortunately the news coming out of CRIMS for the radial routes is that they're still in to roadworks mode...but I'm with Gaz on this. Cycling from Crystal Palace to London and back on one of these bikes might be do-able for the supremely fit - just - but most of these bikes will stay within Zone 1

I think the key to this is congeniality. To get, say from Kings Cross to Euston by the quickest route is an intimidating prospect for the neophyte cyclists. Leicester Square to Victoria should be easypeasy, but the circumnavigation of Trafalgar Square isn't great. Without some attempt to tame the car there'll be a limit to the scheme's success - although, as I say, we all wish it the very best


----------



## Norm (8 Feb 2010)

chap

You seem extremely knowledgeable and committed to this and you have a zeal which, whilst refreshing in a by-stander, comes across as being almost evangelical. 

I hope that you don't mind me asking if you are connected with this project, as I've only seen the sort of passion you show when being sold something.

If you aren't then I apologise but your devotion put the question in my mind.


----------



## marinyork (8 Feb 2010)

re: Thomas and Dellzeqq, the sort of thing I'd use it for would be like in the past when I've had to get from Waterloo or Victoria to King's Cross/St Pancras. I like walking in London, it's one of the most friendly places for pedestrians in the country but both of those journeys are about 3 miles and when you have slight time constraints the bike hire would probably have off 80% of the walk and save you 15 minutes. Also going between the terminii and Notting Hill festival direction. 

As for what Greg Collins said about nicking them, if it is credit card what I wondered about was how the credit card worked. Whether you had to insert the card into the docking machine and then you were allowed to undock a bike or whether you could just detach the bike and off you go. If it was the first I can see people being bikejacked and then joyriding the bikes off for 24 hours or something at someone else's expense. If it was the latter then the bikes will get nicked. I doubt whether it'd be a good idea putting the card reader in the bike as a criminal could haul it off to their lair and fiddle around with it at their pleasure.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (8 Feb 2010)

marinyork - Victoria (and v occasionally Waterloo) to Kings Cross/St Pancras is almost precisely my most frequent cross London work/social route. just what I was thinking they would be good for. small world.

Anything that relies on a credit/debit card for security assumes Johnny Scrote, or as he is known to readers of the DM Oleg Scroteski, can't clone a valid credit/debit card if he wants to. He can, for a few pence a time, well worth doing if you can export the bikes to a ready market alongside the Velibs and their cousins. I can already hear the plaintive cries of my Geordie cousins when they find an overdue bike charge on their statement and cry "Boot bonny lass av niver evin been to that Lundun, let alooan riden a bike thiar man pet"


----------



## dellzeqq (8 Feb 2010)

marinyork said:


> re: Thomas and Dellzeqq, the sort of thing I'd use it for would be like in the past when I've had to get from Waterloo or Victoria to King's Cross/St Pancras.


absolutely - and the joy of it is that the Tube is stuffed at peak periods, the access to the stations increasingly complex (have you been through St. Pancras recently) and the buses inevitably take a time. The Velib would be as quick as any other way - quicker even than a black cab.

I used to travel from an office just to the east of Victoria to a building site in Regents Park three times a week, and from the office to another office in Smithfield once a week. Taking care not to get out of breath, wearing trousers, jacket, suede shoes and carrying drawings I'd be quicker on the Brompton than a cab, and a lot quicker than the tube.


----------



## chap (8 Feb 2010)

Norm said:


> chap
> 
> You seem extremely knowledgeable and committed to this and you have a zeal which, whilst refreshing in a by-stander, comes across as being almost evangelical.
> 
> ...




Curses, you found me out, I am indeed Boris and I would have gotten away with it...

Thanks for the compliment, I am in no way connected with the project, I do not expect that I shall even make much use of the scheme. I'm just excited because, I'm sick of ill-prepared and half-done measures to accommodate cyclists.

After what I have seen in Paris, and I admit to being a fan of J H Crawfords 'Car Free Cities', I feel that this may be the thing which finally breaks through the malaise associated with cycle schemes and effective transportation. If I had my way, I would pedestrianise large swathes of the city, and introduce proper segregated cycling (of cycle-friendly) routes at key points.

London, is an amazing city which deserved far better than it is currently receiving with regards to town design, architecture, and transportation. I am just hoping that at last this will wake up those local authorities and such.


----------



## chap (8 Feb 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> We have a critical mass on some routes already - Greenwich to London Bridge and Colliers Wood to Westminster being the two that come to mind. All that TfL, Johnson and the cycling organisations have to do is to look at what works, look at what doesn't work, and make changes accordingly. Unfortunately the news coming out of CRIMS for the radial routes is that they're still in to roadworks mode...but I'm with Gaz on this. Cycling from Crystal Palace to London and back on one of these bikes might be do-able for the supremely fit - just - but most of these bikes will stay within Zone 1
> 
> I think the key to this is congeniality. To get, say from Kings Cross to Euston by the quickest route is an intimidating prospect for the neophyte cyclists. Leicester Square to Victoria should be easypeasy, but the circumnavigation of Trafalgar Square isn't great. Without some attempt to tame the car there'll be a limit to the scheme's success - although, as I say, we all wish it the very best




That is very true, perhaps Crystal Palace shall be akin to Montmatre in Paris (a Vélib+ station where you get a few extra minutes for parking there.) Personally, I have used the Brompton around those parts (not Crystal Palace but on the same sort of hills) and it was very doable, no doubt on a full-sized sit and beg, some may choose to walk up the hill. 

Congeniality is key, however my hypothesis is that after critical mass of a politically supported scheme is reached, there is no way they'll let it fail, especially with all that might fail with the up and coming Olympics. One also has to remember that the up and coming Olympics shall put an intense strain on our infrastructure. This is a time, I anticipate that severe restrictions shall be placed on cars (if only for the few weeks the event is hosted.) If things are left to run as usual, they will be running around like headless chickens, until one says quick lets get more buses and more bikes. It would be a moment where they are faced with the uncomfortable truth concerning the unsustainability and unscalability of cars.

With this in mind, people will have to become used to cyclists, especially taxi drivers who in a day - should they have the wrong attitude - will likely have several complaints lodged against them from casual cyclists, concerning their uncivilised attitude and dangerous driving. When an affordable activity/practice becomes mainstream, standards normally rise. This is why we don't have many more of those grotty Italian joints, they have to live up to the, admittedly superficial, standards of Costa and Starbucks,


----------



## dellzeqq (8 Feb 2010)

chap said:


> Congeniality is key, however my hypothesis is that after critical mass of a politically supported scheme is reached, there is no way they'll let it fail, especially with all that might fail with the up and coming Olympics. One also has to remember that the up and coming Olympics shall put an intense strain on our infrastructure. This is a time, I anticipate that severe restrictions shall be placed on cars (if only for the few weeks the event is hosted.) If things are left to run as usual, they will be running around like headless chickens, until one says quick lets get more buses and more bikes. It would be a moment where they are faced with the uncomfortable truth concerning the unsustainability and unscalability of cars.
> ,


Chap - I'm not sure that TfL have got hold of the potential for using sustainable transport for the Olympics, or, indeed, the problems that it might present. Last I heard they were looking to wiggly green lines across parks. And there was no modelling of what 5,000 or 20,000 bikes might do to the streets around the Olympic park. All I can say is this - if you're planning on riding to Stratford, take sandwiches and a sleeping bag....


----------



## chap (8 Feb 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> Chap - I'm not sure that TfL have got hold of the potential for using sustainable transport for the Olympics, or, indeed, the problems that it might present. Last I heard they were looking to wiggly green lines across parks. And there was no modelling of what 5,000 or 20,000 bikes might do to the streets around the Olympic park. All I can say is this - if you're planning on riding to Stratford, take sandwiches and a sleeping bag....


----------



## marinyork (8 Feb 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> absolutely - and the joy of it is that the Tube is stuffed at peak periods, the access to the stations increasingly complex (have you been through St. Pancras recently) and the buses inevitably take a time. The Velib would be as quick as any other way - quicker even than a black cab.



I agree with this. Not too keen on the tube or the complex goings around and St Pancras is far worse now.

Anyway I asked some non-cyclists what they thought of all this stuff announced and they said they'd give it a go  but it was a shame they'd have to wait till May and wanted to give it a go in March or April. They said they'd even like to give it a go at first in one of the parks where you can cycle .

Double anyway, I was hoping that even zone 1 could have some use for them to link up with bus/tube although an outsider looking into this is harder. Just zone 2 I'm sure this would start to happen, although I appreciate it might be 3 or 4 years until zones 2 and 3 are included.


----------



## thomas (8 Feb 2010)

marinyork said:


> re: Thomas and Dellzeqq, the sort of thing I'd use it for would be like in the past when I've had to get from Waterloo or Victoria to King's Cross/St Pancras. I like walking in London, it's one of the most friendly places for pedestrians in the country but both of those journeys are about 3 miles and when you have slight time constraints the bike hire would probably have off 80% of the walk and save you 15 minutes. Also going between the terminii and Notting Hill festival direction.



Yep, I think anything over a mile and a half and I'd certainly be interested in using it. 3 miles would take me about an hour at my normal amble...and I'm happy to pay a quid to do it in 15 min.

Next time I'm in London, when it's running, I'd be tempted just to give it a go, get one for half an hour and just go around aimlessly


----------



## Norm (8 Feb 2010)

chap said:


> Curses, you found me out, I am indeed Boris and I would have gotten away with it...


















Oh, you were joking.









chap said:


> Thanks for the compliment, I am in no way connected with the project, I do not expect that I shall even make much use of the scheme. I'm just excited because, I'm sick of ill-prepared and half-done measures to accommodate cyclists.


I agree completely, and I am impressed with both your knowledge and your zeal. 

If anyone wants to try such things, they are already available in some cities. OYBike have facilities in Cardiff, Reading and Farnborough. There's a rental location near one of my company's offices and I've never seen anyone on one of their bikes, although it looks like their only have 13 bikes and 3 locations to cover Reading, none of which are handy for a rail station.


----------



## chap (9 Feb 2010)

*Farnborough Cycle Hire Scheme - a wasted opportunity?*



Norm said:


> Oh, you were joking.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




 

I have heard of them in Farnborough, although the strange thing was that there were 2 hubs within close proximity to each other, in an area I do not think was particularly well served, nor in fact populated.

I think the recycling centre was there, bar that it was almost farcical - what we have long come to expect from many cycle facilities provided by a disinterested local authority with ticks in boxes and their next bonus on their mind.

Farnborough would have been far better served if these hubs had been put at the following locations in order (as a rough plan):



Farnborough Main Station
Farnborough North Station
Farnborough North Camp Station
ASDA - Kingsmeade
Various business parks (car-park / congestion relief)*
Farnborough Technical College
The Sixth Form College
Farnborough Gate (Halfords / TK Max)
QueensMeade - central terrace
Morrisons
Farnborough Airport
The Recycling Centre (South)
Local Council
Premier Inn Hotel
SUN / Nokia building
Neighbourhood drops (5 bikes per 0.5 mile radius)

Then finally the locations where they are, at present it makes little sense, if any.

Although to their credit, mainly through my ignorance, I have noticed that along the south of the town, they have segregated cycling facilities, and the road for cars is not stupidly wide as is the usual case. I am unsure as to whether the segregated cycle facilities are wholly so, or are just a zoned off section on a very wide pavement, but it seems as if it's a descent space.

Farnborough would make a good cycle town, it is very pretty and has a lot more to offer than they perhaps believe.


**EDIT: *

I have just looked at the website, and noticed that the 2 bike hubs were in fact in business centres - which despite my understanding what they may have been trying to achieve, is actually worse as they get used from Monday to Friday 9 - 5 and that is all.

If they had placed these at the railways stations with clear directions on quiet, safe, easy, and quick direct routes to key parts of town, this would be much more effective. One would also have the following to add amongst their customers:
 

 Commuters (Station to Station; Station to Work; Work to Shops and CBD)
 Students (Station to School/College; School/College to Shops and CBD)
 Residents (Nearest to Shops; Nearest to Station)
I also remember there being an excellent (and rightfully trumpeted) pub called 'The Thatched Cottage'. This was family friendly and comfortable also equidistant (about 0.25 - 0.5 miles) from the railway station and the sixth form college and an ideal place to put a couple of bikes 

There are plenty of potentially quick routes in Farnborough, they just need more promotion, maintenance, and proper designation. In all towns and cities, it should be easier and most direct to walk or cycle, than to drive - after all who feels the pinch after a 0.5 mile detour. 

A car should be a privilege, not an necessity.


----------



## dellzeqq (9 Feb 2010)

oybikes put bikes in to business centres for people to make business trips - looks good to me...


----------



## skrx (9 Feb 2010)

GregCollins said:


> Anything that relies on a credit/debit card for security assumes Johnny Scrote, or as he is known to readers of the DM Oleg Scroteski, can't clone a valid credit/debit card if he wants to. He can, for a few pence a time



I don't think they can clone the chips on credit/debit cards. There are already machines that only accept chip cards (no swiping), such as ticket machines at stations, but this would exclude lots of tourists (Americans etc).


----------



## chap (9 Feb 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> oybikes put bikes in to business centres for people to make business trips - looks good to me...



Then it would make sense for them to have hubs at the railway stations as well.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (9 Feb 2010)

skrx said:


> I don't think they can clone the chips on credit/debit cards. There are already machines that only accept chip cards (no swiping), such as ticket machines at stations, but this would exclude lots of tourists (Americans etc).




unless the stations are connected to the bank directly a la ATM machines a simple 'yes card' will do the trick. fairly likely the stations will actually use mag stripe, to accomodate tourists in which case it is even easier.


----------



## skrx (11 Feb 2010)

GregCollins said:


> unless the stations are connected to the bank directly a la ATM machines a simple 'yes card' will do the trick. fairly likely the stations will actually use mag stripe, to accomodate tourists in which case it is even easier.



I'm not an expert on this, but I think there is an encryption key in the chip, which the card reader should be verifying, and which should prevent cloning the chip. That's why we've seen a massive reduction in card fraud in the UK -- criminals will still try and steal cards, but they will use them online or in countries that don't have chip cards (e.g. USA, far east).

In any case, I'm sure the bike scheme people will sort out who is liable for the cost of stolen bikes for all the kinds of theft they're likely to face.


----------



## chap (11 Feb 2010)

skrx said:


> I'm not an expert on this, but I think there is an encryption key in the chip, which the card reader should be verifying, and which should prevent cloning the chip. That's why we've seen a massive reduction in card fraud in the UK -- criminals will still try and steal cards, but they will use them online or in countries that don't have chip cards (e.g. USA, far east).
> 
> In any case, I'm sure the bike scheme people will sort out who is liable for the cost of stolen bikes for all the kinds of theft they're likely to face.




And as more services go online... The chip & pin idea is terrible, the encryption standards are not stellar, esp. when using those wireless devices in a crowded place life a resturant.

We have issues concerning security with ATM's, the same issue could apply to other outdoor card reading devices. I could spend more time thinking of more dubious and criminal shenanigans that these dishonourable so-so-and-so's could get up to, but instead I shall reflect on how awesome the Cycle Rental Scheme of London shall be


----------



## GrumpyGregry (11 Feb 2010)

skrx said:


> I'm not an expert on this, but I think there is an encryption key in the chip, which the card reader should be verifying, and which should prevent cloning the chip. That's why we've seen a massive reduction in card fraud in the UK -- criminals will still try and steal cards, but they will use them online or in countries that don't have chip cards (e.g. USA, far east).
> 
> In any case, I'm sure the bike scheme people will sort out who is liable for the cost of stolen bikes for all the kinds of theft they're likely to face.



no, you're right you're not.

I'm sure innocent people won't get charged, that often anyway, but that's no good if 2/3rds of the bikes have gone AWOL


----------



## skrx (11 Feb 2010)

GregCollins said:


> no, you're right you're not.



Indeed I'm not (I should maybe have emphasised the "shoulds" in my post -- I have a basic idea of how the system is supposed to work, but I didn't study it and haven't seen any mention of problems with the encryption in the news, until today!).

I've just run back here to correct/update what I wrote, as I've read the first page of this paper (PDF).

(And sorry, I should have Googled "yes card" earlier. I didn't realise it was a technical term.)


----------



## chap (9 Mar 2010)

*Ready, Get Set...*

Well things are starting to move now. The correct people are being put in place. The LCC are now starting to push for a proper cycling infrastructure by means of a Bike Grid, key timing? Serco, are gettting warmed up and the Evening Standard are giving them the oxygen of publicity they require.

Plus Boris has done a video


----------



## dellzeqq (10 Mar 2010)

the bike grid is LCN+ mk 2, LCN+ having been proved a vast waste of money. Cycle campaigners should adopt a self-denying ordinance - 'I will not draw lines on maps'.

The most extraordinary thing about the bike grid is the basic misapprehension about the nature of city streets. The very London streets that the LCC defines as coarse grain are the streets most used by pedestrians and cyclists.

Happily nobody gives jack-sh*t about lines on maps. Cyclists just swan down the very roads the DfT and the LCC deem unsuitable. Sadly these very roads are now being marked out with blue paint in a kind of caricature of what cyclists actually do.


----------



## Dan B (10 Mar 2010)

chap said:


> And as more services go online... The chip & pin idea is terrible, the encryption standards are not stellar, esp. when using those wireless devices in a crowded place life a resturant.


I find it interesting how many of the handheld devices I see nowadays are GSM dialups (i.e they have the guts of a mobile phone embedded in them) instead of being wifi. I think we can ascribe this mostly to the PCIDSS wireless security standards being better enforced than they used to be, and therefore more card merchants just want to avoid tangling with them.

This is so much off-topic, I know. Sorry.


----------



## chap (13 Mar 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> the bike grid is LCN+ mk 2, LCN+ having been proved a vast waste of money. Cycle campaigners should adopt a self-denying ordinance - 'I will not draw lines on maps'.
> 
> The most extraordinary thing about the bike grid is the basic misapprehension about the nature of city streets. The very London streets that the LCC defines as coarse grain are the streets most used by pedestrians and cyclists.
> 
> Happily nobody gives jack-sh*t about lines on maps. Cyclists just swan down the very roads the DfT and the LCC deem unsuitable. Sadly these very roads are now being marked out with blue paint in a kind of caricature of what cyclists actually do.



Dellzeqq, it has taken 5 pages, and another thread, but finally I understand where you are coming from. And as is the usual case with such misunderstandings, I don't think we disagree on much.

It would seem that the point you disagree that cyclists should be constrained by the routes laid out for them. That these designated zones are akin to implementing a shoddily designed subset of a poor highway for cyclists. What you are after is for cycling to be without constraints but safe: freedom to use any path of the city without the unnecessary risk that many routes entail.

On this I am in 100% agreement with you. Where I think we disagree, is on these designated zones. I too believe that I should be able to cycle across any road in London, although I am willing to 'sacrifice' some routes for high quality alternatives, the main route in mind is the chaos surrounding, and including, the Hammersmith Flyover - there is no way you will catch me cycling there.

Similarly, it would be an own goal should this LCC campaigned grid meant that HGV deaths continued around and within it. Therefore, it is on this point I am in agreement(?) that better alternatives are required such as access to one way routes and quietened residential areas. However, parts of the LCN can be of use, such as those through parks. The problem is that many of the recognised cyclist groups seem happy to waste time on the ambiguous. 

The organisation I had such high hopes for, which has completely let me down, is the London Cycle Campaign. Most of their campaigns on issues such as Lorry safety, and routes appear to be sadly vague or impractical. Whilst it is currently de riguer in 'business' and politics to waste time on buzz-words and brainstorming to produce nebulous mission statements, rhetoric, and goals, this really should not be the case with campaigning groups: whose origins are to promote a particular cause. Thus trash such as this, most of this, and this really have no place at the LCC. Finally, instead on focusing on extensive long-term campaigns (usually spanning several elective terms) perhaps they ought to match their goals to their, and many politicians, outlooks by focusing on the short-term to a maximum of 2 years.


----------



## jonesy (13 Mar 2010)

chap, part of the problem, and one I've banged on about a number of times here, but it bears repeating, is that people seem to forget that cycling is predominantly used for short trips, so any additional deviation and delay on a route very rapidly reduces the number of cyclists likely to use it. 90% are under 5 miles, 55% under 2 miles, 20% under 1 mile (NTS 2006, Table 3.4). 

This is of course well known, but seems to be frequently forgotten, partly I think because those actively engaged in lobbying for cycling, whether of the CTC or Sustans persuasion, are usually keen cyclists and are likely to undertake longer cycle trips than the typical cyclist. This means that far too many of those involved in planning 'networks' are doing so from an entirely unrealistic perspective of the types and lengths of trip that their target audience are likely to undertake. So forget long, tortuous routes round the back streets that add a mile and maybe another ten minutes in an urban area: this sort of thing rapidly eliminates any time advantage cycling might have over driving in particular, and won't therefore attract significant usage outside the minority who want to cycle for cycling's sake. 

There's a NCN railway path near where I live, a very nice one in fact that I helped raise funds and lobby for and am very pleased to have. But as it enters the town it takes an indirect route to the main shopping centre, the most direct route being to leave the path at that point and ride about 0.75 mile down a fairly quiet but direct street. However, at the very place where you would leave the path there is a NCN signpost sending you via the NCN route, saying "Town Centre 1.5 miles". That's twice the distance of the direct route, a distance greater than probably 40% or so of all cycle trips... sadly that NCN signpost is actually discouraging people from walking or cycling to the town centre, but is a not untypical example of what happens on official cycle 'networks'.


----------



## chap (13 Mar 2010)

jonesy said:


> chap, part of the problem, and one I've banged on about a number of times here, but it bears repeating, is that people seem to forget that cycling is predominantly used for short trips, so any additional deviation and delay on a route very rapidly reduces the number of cyclists likely to use it. 90% are under 5 miles, 55% under 2 miles, 20% under 1 mile (NTS 2006, Table 3.4).
> 
> This is of course well known, but seems to be frequently forgotten, partly I think because those actively engaged in lobbying for cycling, whether of the CTC or Sustans persuasion, are usually keen cyclists and are likely to undertake longer cycle trips than the typical cyclist. This means that far too many of those involved in planning 'networks' are doing so from an entirely unrealistic perspective of the types and lengths of trip that their target audience are likely to undertake. So forget long, tortuous routes round the back streets that add a mile and maybe another ten minutes in an urban area: this sort of thing rapidly eliminates any time advantage cycling might have over driving in particular, and won't therefore attract significant usage outside the minority who want to cycle for cycling's sake.
> 
> There's a NCN railway path near where I live, a very nice one in fact that I helped raise funds and lobby for and am very pleased to have. But as it enters the town it takes an indirect route to the main shopping centre, the most direct route being to leave the path at that point and ride about 0.75 mile down a fairly quiet but direct street. However, at the very place where you would leave the path there is a NCN signpost sending you via the NCN route, saying "Town Centre 1.5 miles". That's twice the distance of the direct route, a distance greater than probably 40% or so of all cycle trips... sadly that NCN signpost is actually discouraging people from walking or cycling to the town centre, but is a not untypical example of what happens on official cycle 'networks'.



I agree with you entirely, especially on your description of priorities. After saftey, directness ought to be the main priority since these issues tend to be regarded the other way round (that of saftey being an issue since many routes taken are rather unsafe.)

I beleive that the 2 big cycle organisations tend to have a rather preachy and condescendin tone. I would agree with you that this is because they are generally ran by cycle-enthusiasts; although it can appear overly cliquish, and as if they have bought into the cult of Cycle-craft.

You are right about most journeys by bicycle being seen as a short-distance alternative. This is why I believe that London is ideally suited to make a statement to the rest of the country concerning the green-sustainable travel form of cycling, and good design due to the high numbers of mixed-usage land: business and residential co-existing. One can usually find all they need within a 2 (if not 1/2) mile radius of their home in London. Given this case, and that the roads are chock-a-block and space is at a premium, bikes really are one of the ways forward there.

This is becoming evidenced in Lambeth, Chelsea and Kensington, and even in parts of East London. The reason why East London is such a surprise is not because of the general poorer residents in these parts, but because of the very poor layout and design of the streets and junctions, lack of cycling infrastructure, as well as the high level of very bad driving from drivers (esp. lorries).

Therefore the city would be in good stead to ensure that all junctions and roads were safe for cyclists and that the dedicated 'routes' were:



Safe
Direct
Well sign-posted
Continuous
Large - it is disgraceful to have a 1 metre lane, at minimum it should be twice this.


----------



## zacklaws (13 Mar 2010)

Well if its a sucess lets hope we do better than Paris did with its hire bikes, where in 18 months half of them had been stolen or vandalised.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7881079.stm


----------



## chap (14 Mar 2010)

*Wil vandalism ruin the LCHS*



zacklaws said:


> Well if its a sucess lets hope we do better than Paris did with its hire bikes, where in 18 months half of them had been stolen or vandalised.
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7881079.stm




This needn't be an issue. To give you an idea of the problem in Paris, the NYTimes has done an overview: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/31/world/europe/31bikes.html

Whilst the wealth divide in London is very high the transportation costs needn't be overly prohibitive (£1.20 end to end by bus). The cycle hire scheme shall be in Zone 1 initially, so it is not out in the suburbs so to speak, and has time to establish itself as a part of London, and trial different approached, before being adopted outwith the central zone.

The fact we are an island makes driving off with the bikes to Eastern Europe or further afield just that little bit harder, and the cost of checking them into Ryan Air would negate any potential benefits of having the model in Poland, Romania, or wherever. London is one of the most watched places on CCTV, especially in Zone 1, so I do not think that many would bother, especially with the easy pickings that lie around elsewhere, when compared to the locks these docked machines would have. The Vélib bikes have a small lock aside which means that they can be locked against a railing, the London equivalent will insist that they are put by a docking station. I would imagine that these stations would probably be alarmed.

Finally, whilst they are problems in London concerning racial/religious/social tensions in parts, this is nothing compared to many parts of the continent such as France where Racism is strife. There is more reason for resentment to be felt amongst those of Algerian origin in France, than any of the major ethnic groups in London. Therefore, the resentment stemming from exclusion will not be anything compared to there.

This is not to say that London is all well and rosy, there are problems here. Many are excluded to varying extents and are needlessly targeted. There is also a drug problem, as well as wayward youth (of all colours, creeds, and religions) whose problematic behaviour stems from both historic and recent situations somewhat similar to the poor of Paris. There is also our alcohol problems here - expect a few stands to be coated in vomit, but over time I think that things shall work for the better. Plus one also must look at the Vélib issue in the context of that time, I have not heard of JC Deleux pulling out, they still benefit from the scheme and thus the scheme continues.

I just wish TfL would thing of something more catchy and less of a mouthful than London Cycle Hire Scheme. Considering the amount f money they squander on consultants, one would have thought that they wuld have at least given some to a marketing firm.


----------



## Riverman (23 Mar 2010)

I see where you're coming from chap but that Oybikes scheme which they trialled in Southampton was an utter disaster. Overpriced and vandalised beyond belief. 

I saw a similar thing happen in Cheltenham too.

Not exactly the number one spots for crime in the country.

I think such schemes should be 100% free personally, and all bikes should be locked up in sheds. 

I don't know much about the London one; is it being funded by the congestion charge?


----------



## chap (23 Mar 2010)

Riverman said:


> I see where you're coming from chap but that Oybikes scheme which they trialled in Southampton was an utter disaster. Overpriced and vandalised beyond belief.
> 
> I saw a similar thing happen in Cheltenham too.
> 
> ...




Found the feasibility report 

This details the considerations that have gone into the scheme. The Oybike programme (although in London) is covered too.

I believe that these things should be subsidised, but not free as that leads to neglect through taking things for granted. Whereas if you have some part to play in it, cash payments are the default example of this, then there is a sense of ownership thus it is treated with more care.

It is a balancing act, if it is too expensive then people will be dissuaded. I think that the current pricing structure is ....Ok. If it is a good spring / summer then it most certainly should take off well amongst commuters, otherwise I think it will be more of a curiosity item, as there are cheaper alternatives.

Two things that London is crying out for are better cycling facilities (esp. secure parking) and safer routes. Whilst issues such as HGVs in the city go unaddressed, and politically sidestepped, the perception of cycling in London will not reach the critical mass we desire. 

The depressing thing is that I do not even think that the required 'Parisian' changes would be 'courageous' moves by the mayor, nor the boroughs councils.

Feasibility Report [PDF]
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downlo...re-scheme-feasibility-full-report-nov2008.pdf


----------



## marinyork (27 Mar 2010)

I was trying to find if there is any new news on this scheme (as it starts soon) for a friend. Unfortunately I noticed the £45 annual access fee . Was this there before and I did not notice? I think it's going to be a hell of a lot harder to convince people to give this a go when you tell them there's a £45 annual fee (although at least they give you the option of a day or a week membership).

Besides that is there any new information about how things are ticking along?


----------



## chap (27 Mar 2010)

marinyork said:


> I was trying to find if there is any new news on this scheme (as it starts soon) for a friend. Unfortunately I noticed the £45 annual access fee . Was this there before and I did not notice? I think it's going to be a hell of a lot harder to convince people to give this a go when you tell them there's a £45 annual fee (although at least they give you the option of a day or a week membership).
> 
> Besides that is there any new information about how things are ticking along?



Deary me! The Vélib scheme is far more expansive than the LCHS will be yet their subscriptions work out at €1 per day, €5 per week or €29 per year. (WIKIPEDIA)

It looks all rather depressing, hopefully on the day they will deliver and it shall become an outstanding success. At present it looks as if it is targeted at white-collar cycling commuters, well-off residents up for something new, and councillors looking for a PR friendly pow-wow in the city.

I don't know whether that is more depressing, or the lack of interest in improving cycling safety in the city. E.g. This report into improving cycling in the outer boroughs makes a single ineffectual point about HGV's: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/businessandpartners/benefits-of-cycling-report.pdf

Fortunately, cycling will take off in spite of their efforts. If a fleet of strikes does not ensure this, then the forthcoming petrol prices shall.


----------



## marinyork (27 Mar 2010)

I hope the scheme is a big success but at £45 annual fee it might end up for a very demographic than what I'd hope . There are still a lot of potential positives there though.


----------



## chap (27 Mar 2010)

Actually, it needn't be that bad, if not for the steeped subscription rates which may get people interested then definitely because of my new name for the scheme: Lochs  We're fine until Loch Lomond decide to start their own.

Subscription rates:


24-hour access - £1
Seven-day access - £5
Annual access - £45 (members only)


----------



## CopperBrompton (28 Mar 2010)

Seems good value to me. Those wanting to use it more casually will get a day's access, those wanting to use it once a week or more will get annual access.


----------



## Norm (28 Mar 2010)

The rental charges are on top of those numbers which chap posted, Ben. So, someone wanting casual access for 30 minutes will "only" pay the £1 but, if you use it for 90-120 minutes, it is £7, which is more than a zone 1-4 off peak travelcard

It gets monumentally worse, though, using it for anything over 3 hours costs at least £35! If you want to use it for casually cycling around and sight-seeing, rather than just zipping from one rental bay to the next, that is a lot of taxi fares.


----------



## chap (28 Mar 2010)

Norm said:


> The rental charges are on top of those numbers which chap posted, Ben. So, someone wanting casual access for 30 minutes will "only" pay the £1 but, if you use it for 90-120 minutes, it is £7, which is more than a zone 1-4 off peak travelcard
> 
> It gets monumentally worse, though, using it for anything over 3 hours costs at least £35! If you want to use it for casually cycling around and sight-seeing, rather than just zipping from one rental bay to the next, that is a lot of taxi fares.




I think they advice that if you want it for over 3 hours, you're better off looking at rental options from one of the bike hire places. 

This could be their mediation meter, a less stringent form of Bicing's Barcelona residents only policy, intended to keep the LBS and cycle hire places sweet.

Personally, if it costs £1, and I can scatter my journey hops around the city at 29 or less minutes, then you can save a several pounds. Most of the time spent underground is actually moving to the right platform (running up and down stairs), central London is not that large. 

Likewise, £5 for a week is pretty good too. If one intends to make prolonged use of a bike, there are other options - then again these become prohibitive since you have to scramble for the lack of cycling stands, as for secure parking...


----------



## CopperBrompton (28 Mar 2010)

Yes, I was specifically referring to the access charges. The rental charges are a bit high for longer use, but I suspect Chap has hit the nail on the head there: it's not fair to small businesses to have taxpayers' money competing with them.


----------



## marinyork (28 Mar 2010)

Ben Lovejoy said:


> Seems good value to me. Those wanting to use it more casually will get a day's access, those wanting to use it once a week or more will get annual access.



It represents good value overall, but people don't necessarily think like that. £45 fee and just string together a set of short journeys is still good value. It just looks awful from a price point point of view. A lot of poorer people will look at that and think I can buy a so called BSO for twice that much, why should I bother? It doesn't matter that you don't need to worry about parking/storage and stuff because newbies don't necessarily think like that. Price is paramount in getting people on the things, once they are hooked some of this goes away but you have to get over that first hurdle.

At least they have let people do day or week but £45 is basically a scheme for the wealthy.

I hope that some of the GPs/health authorities prescribing exercise jump on the bandwagon and give free/reduced years access + key etc.


----------



## CopperBrompton (28 Mar 2010)

marinyork said:


> At least they have let people do day or week but £45 is basically a scheme for the wealthy.


I think it's more a tariff for people who expect to use it weekly or more.


----------



## marinyork (28 Mar 2010)

Ben Lovejoy said:


> I think it's more a tariff for people who expect to use it weekly or more.



I'm sure it is set for that but I think it's probably too high or that you need some fourth option. 

I'm not sure a week is set right but at least it is there. People often sign up for things and then don't get round to necessarily doing it or doing it a second time for quite a while afterwards. A week is probably pretty good for a tourist though I guess. Another option if things go badly would perhaps as a promotion give out a week or month for free, I think that'd probably level things up a bit and it's the sort of thing you want at the start of a scheme.

I just think I'd personally have difficulties persuading people to give it a go when they find out what the pricing for the access charge is and I think that's a shame and some of these people are on pretty high incomes. It's a chance for people that live outside zone 1 when they occasionally go in it to have a go on a bike, perhaps in a park and see what a bike is like.


----------



## Norm (28 Mar 2010)

400 hire stations but no clue where they are. I'm sure that will change but I can see there would be some demand for commuters. I used to get the train to Paddington then underground to TCR. It was a couple of miles straight along Oxford Street, so it would be free (other than the periodic fees) if the bikes were available regularly at either end.



marinyork said:


> I'm not sure a week is set right but at least it is there. People often sign up for things and then don't get round to necessarily doing it or doing it a second time for quite a while afterwards. A week is probably pretty good for a tourist though I guess.


I think the point there is that it's £1 for a day or £5 for a week. For commuters, that means there are no financial benefits to buying a weekly ticket. 

For occasional users, there's little benefit in getting anything other than a daily ticket.


----------



## chap (28 Mar 2010)

_One wouldn't be wrong in thinking that it is a business commuter / touristy thing predominantly. From the feasibility study page 44:_

*2.1 Differences between central London and Paris *

164.
London Analytics was commissioned to look at the elements of the Parisian success from the demand analysis point of view. Paris was selected as it is the biggest scheme currently in operation. Also the city of Paris shares some characteristic with London as a ‘world city’ (similar population, number of visitors, public transport provision, etc). 
The findings were then compared to the study area in London 

165.
The main differences between the study in London and the existing scheme in Paris are as follows: 



Smaller deployment area – 40 km2 in London compared with 87 km2 in Paris
Lower population within the deployment area – 400,000 in London compared with 6,500,000 in Paris
Lower population density – 12,000 people per km2 in central London compared to 24,000 in Paris
Fewer trips are made by the inhabitants of the metropolitan area – 815,000 (Zone 1 to Zone 1) in London compared to 6.5 million in Paris.
Fewer trips above 1km – 256,000 trips in London compared to 3.25 million in Paris (average weekday)
Higher cycling mode share in Central London (increase of 86 per cent since 2000 in London compared to 46 per cent in Paris in the same period up to the introduction of Vélib’)
Much greater employment density in London than Paris. Paris has 1.6 million jobs with a density of 18,390 jobs per km2 – London has 1.53 millions jobs with density 45,000 jobs per km2. By 2025 London is expected to have 1.89 million jobs with a density of 55,588 jobs per km2
166. 
The observed uptake in Paris is around three per cent (including trips by tourists and visitors). Of all existing trips, three per cent are made by cycle hire. The majority of these trips are made by residents within the deployment zone (the Boulevard Périphérique) 

167. 
Based only on trips made by residents London has fewer potential trips than Paris, resulting in a possible lower predicted usage of cycle hire. However, in addition to resident trips, many thousands of trips in London will be made by tourists, business visitors and rail commuters 

*2.2 Tourists and visitors* 

168. 
London has a significant number of visitors and tourists – 26 million a year in greater London (compared to 15 million in Paris). They also stay longer with an average length of stay of 4.6 nights (compared to 2.1 nights in Paris). 

169. 
Based on tourist and visitor data from the London boroughs, it has been assumed that 75 per cent of trips are made in central London. For example, even if a tourist or a visitor stays in Outer London they are likely to travel into central London for some of their stay. Many tourists will stay (and make trips) within central London for the entirety of their stay 

170. 
Assuming a conservative rate of three trips per day and a trip length distribution profile similar to that of trips made by residents (around 30 per cent of trips are longer than 1km) this gives an estimated 230,000 daily trips of more than 1km by tourists and visitors to London 

171. 
The calculation is as follows: 26 million visitors and tourists a year equates to around 71,233 arriving daily. Each staying 4.6 days and undertaking three trips per day equates to around 983,000 daily trips. Of these, 75 per cent are undertaken in central London and around 31 per cent are of more than 1 km. This equates to 230,000 daily trips of more than 1 km by visitors and tourists to London 
*
2.3 The after rail market and additional business trips *

172. 
Around 522,000 trips terminate in central London at National Rail stations, most of which take place in the morning peak. The busiest eight stations produce approximately 300,000 trips, for which the journey between the station and the final destination, within Zone 1, is in the range 1km–8km (LATS 2001) 

173. 
LATS data indicates that the average Zone 1 commuter makes 0.56 trips per day in Zone 1 (in addition to their journeys to and from Zone 1). Commuters coming from outside the greater London (not included in LATS) area are bound to make additional trip throughout the day, in addition to their journey to and from work 

174. 
If we assume same travel patterns, 58 per cent of the 522,000 trips terminating at a central London National Rail station would make 0.56 additional trips throughout the day. This equates to 168,000 additional journeys during the working day. This figure is used in table 2.5.1 to estimate total demand


----------



## Norm (28 Mar 2010)

I think that means that they are expecting most trips to be by commuters or tourists because (compared to Paris) no-one lives in Central London, but I got a nose bleed from trying to interpret all of those numbers.


----------



## chap (29 Mar 2010)

Norm said:


> I think that means that they are expecting most trips to be by commuters or tourists because (compared to Paris) no-one lives in Central London, but I got a nose bleed from trying to interpret all of those numbers.



Most definitely, and ditto on the figures 

I think that given the test bed of commuters and tourists, it should be fool proof for when it is (hopefully) expanded outwards. Lessons can (actually) be learnt for other cycle improvement measures, since they will want to make this work. An obvious part in making Central London more cycle-able (other than dealing with HGVs) is proper signage.

After all, and I've posted this before, Central London is very small but lacking in good cycle signs (and secure parking.) Were quieter, and direct (assisted routes to be well signed across say every 50 - 100m and at the start and end of each turn) then it could be the prime steps towards a cycle nirvana. 

These routes ought to be signed:



 London Kings Cross/St Pancreas
London Waterloo
London Paddington
 Victoria
Euston
Charing Cross

In addition to:


Buckingham Palace
Natural History / Science Museum / V&A
Houses of Parliament / Big Ben
Trafalgar Square
The Royal Parks

Dellzeqq pointed out some real issues concerning the linking of Paddington to Euston, however if commuters are to be targeted then this is an issue to be tackled properly: perhaps the case for an actual Superkalafragelistic-cycle-super-highway as opposed to a discontinuous narrow blue strip.


----------



## Norm (29 Mar 2010)

I'll say one thing. Reading all this has made me want to head up to town tomorrow. 

Unfortunately, the Smalls' school broke up yesterday and the wife is working for another few days yet, so I won't be able to sneak out until later in the week. That said, though, the forecast isn't exactly looking sightseeing / tourist friendly for a few days, so the wife working might be just the excuse I need. 

I used to cycle round London plenty when I was a brat, as I went to school in Barnes and went out with a chic chick from the Lycée, so we used to frequently ride round town. I don't think I've done London on a non-motor-bike in about 25 years, though I do keep getting the urge from reading the threads on this place.


----------



## chap (29 Mar 2010)

Norm said:


> I'll say one thing. Reading all this has made me want to head up to town tomorrow.
> 
> Unfortunately, the Smalls' school broke up yesterday and the wife is working for another few days yet, so I won't be able to sneak out until later in the week. That said, though, the forecast isn't exactly looking sightseeing / tourist friendly for a few days, so the wife working might be just the excuse I need.
> 
> I used to cycle round London plenty when I was a brat, as I went to school in Barnes and went out with a chic chick from the Lycée, so we used to frequently ride round town. I don't think I've done London on a non-motor-bike in about 25 years, though I do keep getting the urge from reading the threads on this place.



If you're after a nice ride then save it for Sunday, preferably early morning, failing that then before lunch on a Saturday (bonus being that you can hit the markets)


----------



## Norm (29 Mar 2010)

Hmmm... I'll bear that in mind, chap, but I do rather like (on my motorised steed) the thrunge of riding in traffic and want to see how pedal powered compares. You're right that trying an early morning might get up to speed, so to speak.


----------



## chap (29 Mar 2010)

Norm said:


> Hmmm... I'll bear that in mind, chap, but I do rather like (on my motorised steed) the thrunge of riding in traffic and want to see how pedal powered compares. You're right that trying an early morning might get up to speed, so to speak.




In that case, my friend, may I recommend ... the rush hour home trip. Into Kings Cross at 6, head towards Trafalgar Square, HoP, then Victoria 




Seriously, be careful


----------



## Norm (30 Mar 2010)

Add in a few bridges, the Embankment and a couple of laps of Westminster / Whitehall / Horse Guards and you've got my idea of a fun evening on a _motor_bike. I do understand that the motor will make a significant difference, though.


----------



## chap (31 Mar 2010)

*LoCHS starts Friday 30th July 2010*

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/parisstyle-boris-bikes-arrive-in-july-1931639.html

London's promised "revolution in cycling", based on the Paris velib bike-hire network, will begin on 30 July, Boris Johnson will announce today.

Londoners and visitors to the city will be able to pick up and drop off one of 6,000 hire-bicycles at 400 locations across the centre of the capital.
The scheme, originally proposed by Ken Livingstone, Mr Johnson's predecessor as London Mayor, hopes to avoid the problems that have plagued the popular Parisian velib network, where half the bikes have been lost or stolen.

Users will pay an initial membership fee of £1 for 24-hour access, £5 for seven-day access, or £45 a year. They can make unlimited journeys and the first half-an-hour will be free. On top of that, the London Cycle Hire charge for members will be £1 for a journey of between 30 minutes and one hour, £4 for up to 90 minutes, and £6 for up to two hours. Cyclists will use a new smart-card – similar to an Oyster card – to unlock the bikes.

Mr Johnson, said: "In just four months London will glitter with the twinkling dynamo lights of thousands of shiny hire bikes, zipping around the streets unfettered from timetables, queues and crowds."


----------



## marinyork (31 Mar 2010)

Nice one chap , bit disappointing it seems to have been delayed but it is there for the summer.


----------



## Origamist (31 Mar 2010)

marinyork said:


> Nice one chap , bit disappointing it seems to have been delayed but it is there for the summer.



Yes, May seemed optimistic given that they announced the start date *before *they had even chosen a contractor to do the work!


----------



## marinyork (31 Mar 2010)

Origamist said:


> Yes, May seemed optimistic given that they announced the start date *before *they had even chosen a contractor to do the work!



I didn't think it was going to happen in May but people had said elsewhere construction on the docking bays had started.


----------



## chap (31 Mar 2010)

​


marinyork said:


> Nice one chap , bit disappointing it seems to have been delayed but it is there for the summer.



 Well, judging by the weather, it might be out before the Spring!

I have read a few more articles concerning LoCHS and despite a few contrarians, generally the media seems to be rather keen and on board! _Even_ the LCC are using the opportunity to promote their selves cause.

Here are a few articles, nice to hear that Islington is the cycling-borough, it certainly has been improving, although I suspect it has hot competition from Lambeth, and particularly the East (around Brick Lane). On a related note, the latest Critical Mass (regardless of personal opinion) paid a very fitting tribute to the recent and completely needless deaths of 3 people by HGVs in the city.



Critical Mass ride report
Islington and cycleability
LoCHS advertising with cartoon Boris
Guardian blog opines on development
Summary of the same (LoCHS)


----------



## StuartG (1 Apr 2010)

It will cost you £1 membership for 29 minutes 'free'. So not genuinely free as in Copenhagen (if you can find a bike). Or have I misunderstood?


----------



## BigSteev (1 Apr 2010)

Slightly. I think £1 gives you a day 'membership'. You then get access to the bikes where the first 30 minutes is free. However, I believe this means that if you ride a bike for say 25 mins, park it up in a bay, do your shopping/whatever and then pick up a second bike for the return, your 30 minute free period starts again. So in theory, you could have bikes all day as long as you swap them over every 30 minutes.


----------



## marinyork (1 Apr 2010)

StuartG said:


> It will cost you £1 membership for 29 minutes 'free'. So not genuinely free as in Copenhagen (if you can find a bike). Or have I misunderstood?



There's a £3 key too. Guess you don't have to have that, but it makes it clear it makes access to the bikes 'easier'.


----------



## chap (1 Apr 2010)

*M*



StuartG said:


> It will cost you £1 membership for 29 minutes 'free'. So not genuinely free as in Copenhagen (if you can find a bike). Or have I misunderstood?



Well assuming one pays for annual membership (£45 + one off £3 for the key - as MarinYork mentioned) then you will have a more efficient means to access the bikes and it will work out to under 14p a day, assuming you remain within the 29m59s limit from stop to stop*.

No need for bicycle insurance, no need to purchase a lock, no hassle in finding a place to park. Sounds like a very good deal.


EDIT: By Jove! This is my 1000th post! 


***Probably doable, after all, the bike is the fastest means of travel in London


----------



## chap (29 May 2010)

*London Cycle Hire scheme gets financial muscle*

Looks like Barclays have gotten on board by investing £25 million into the scheme. For this they get to advertise AND they get to chose a name for not only they scheme but the Superhighway project (currently worth a grade F to D-). 

This sponsorship deal should be good since there now is some accountability established. Barclays, an independent body, will not be likely to put up with the usual public sector apathy, botched jobs, and abject laziness, since their name is at stake. This means that things should pick up, and the now infamous blue lines might soon become better planned and organised 'Barclays strips'.

As for the cycle hire scheme; I sincerely hope they choose the name 'LoCHs' 



http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk...-Cycle-Hire-scheme/(energysavingtrust)/677812
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23839472-a-major-milestone-for-boriss-bikes.do


----------



## Riverman (31 May 2010)

They should extend the 'free' time to 45 minutes. I see 29mins59secs as a safety risk, as I imagine one or two people may hurry through junctions to beat the clock. 

It certainly makes the chances of the death of someone undertaking a lorry on a left hand turn higher.

Besides, the system seems over priced anyway.


----------



## StuartG (31 May 2010)

I note the justications for the scheme include

* Improving health
* Taking pressure off public transport

Yet AFAIK the bike scheme will not be included in the Freedom Pass. Nonsensical since that just encourages old people to sit and vegitate on buses instead of maintaining health on a bike. Sitting on buses taking space and hence losing TfL revenue/increasing cost.

Hence I would have thought there was both a health, congestion and economic justification for including it in the Freedom Pass scheme. (I am referring to fixed deterrent upfront costs, not the post 30 min discouragement charges).

Yes - I am declaring an interest - but I do have a Brommie. Most Freedom Passes don't. And local authorities pay to keep 'em fit (free swimming etc) when this is a genuinely beneficial use of public resource.


----------



## marinyork (31 May 2010)

What on earth is a freedom pass?


----------



## style over speed (31 May 2010)

marinyork said:


> What on earth is a freedom pass?



its a "free" bus/train/tube pass that certain groups can apply for.... the over 60's, variously disabled and mental health clients... the list probably goes on.

Its "funded" by a very big chunk of council tax that goes straight into the coffers of TFL in London for instance


----------



## marinyork (31 May 2010)

I see, well fair enough on the annual fee etc (although I think that needs looking at in terms of how high it is anyway). It might look bad on paper giving freedom pass it for free, I can see why they might want to avoid that even if it conflicts with other priorities.


----------



## StuartG (1 Jun 2010)

More info here: http://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/freedompass/default.htm

The point is there should not be a revenue loss to TfL (and possibly a gain). This is because encouraging Freedom Pass holders from bus to bike does not reduce the bus revenue. Indeed it may increase it by making more space available at peak times for fare paying passengers (or reduce the need for extra buses).

Currently it may be cheaper for a bus full fare payer to switch to bike (losing TfL revenue). Whereas the incentive for a Freedom Pass holder is in the opposite direction. The best result financially is for TfL to switch as many old folks onto bikes as possible. It also has major health benefits.

Anybody who has witnessed Copenhagen's cycling grannies will appreciate they can well keep up with the young!


----------



## marinyork (1 Jun 2010)

StuartG said:


> Currently it may be cheaper for a bus full fare payer to switch to bike (losing TfL revenue). Whereas the incentive for a Freedom Pass holder is in the opposite direction. The best result financially is for TfL to switch as many old folks onto bikes as possible. It also has major health benefits.
> 
> Anybody who has witnessed Copenhagen's cycling grannies will appreciate they can well keep up with the young!



That makes sense, but whether that was not the case or not should probably be considered. I think there would be a reluctance to even consider people in these groups cycling. I don't know why that is as it is felt that even in London that some groups still consider them toys or giving them subsidised leisure activities. In terms of cycling these groups have never been considered here in terms of some of the local cycling issues.

Maybe the biggest benefit for older freedom pass holders in this would be when it goes out as far as zone 4?


----------



## StuartG (1 Jun 2010)

marinyork said:


> Maybe the biggest benefit for older freedom pass holders in this would be when it goes out as far as zone 4?


I don't think so. The bike thing fits in well in a multi-modal situation. It is easy to get into central London from pretty well anywhere in the suburbs (that's why the suburbs are there!). The difficulty is getting to the right part of central London. Some bits can be quite a walk from the nearest tube - like Condor's shop in Grays Inn Road for instance. Jumping on a bike for the last 500m would be nice. And it also provides the closest we will ever get to secure bike parking.

The system is designed to deter rail commuters since they are too concentrated for the scheme to handle - but multi-modal interaction with tubes and buses coming in from zones 2/6 is much more diffuse and should work. Unless you think these bikes are just for Zone 1 residents (not a lot) or tourists.

Its just that in the rush to get the scheme going - integration with other transport has been skipped. And as almost anyone knows integrated transport is the only way to go.

I hope they sought this soon.


----------



## chap (2 Jun 2010)

marinyork said:


> That makes sense, but whether that was not the case or not should probably be considered. I think there would be a reluctance to even consider people in these groups cycling. I don't know why that is as it is felt that even in London that some groups still consider them toys or giving them subsidised leisure activities. In terms of cycling these groups have never been considered here in terms of some of the local cycling issues.
> 
> Maybe the biggest benefit for older freedom pass holders in this would be when it goes out as far as zone 4?




I can understand both you and StuartG's points. Many, probably the majority of our drivers, do view cyclists as pests (at best), and cycling as a childs pastime or something to do with the kids on a summers day. Few view it as a serious mode of transportation. The idea that the road is sole domain of the car can easily manifest itself as pretty poor driving too, one doesn't have to read more than 3 random thread titles from Commuting to attest that.

This does not bode well with the uninspired cautious 'enabler', thus would most likely fail to get past mountains upon mountains of red-tape and other examples of bureaucracy aimed at self-preservation through avoiding litigation. After all, the tabloids would scream 'Blue Murder' if one of the Freedom Pass participants were involved in an accident with one of those infamous flying 'tippers', yet the vitriol would not be aimed at those that allow them into the cities narrow and cramped winding streets, uncontrolled, during peak hours.

However, the success of such a strategy will count on people perceiving cycling to be a safe activity. What better demonstration of such sentiment than when women, and especially the young and the elderly feel safe enough to participate freely.
http://www.streetfilms.org/velib/


----------



## chap (2 Jun 2010)

Here is a link to an excellent video about the Parisian scheme (Vélib), of particular note are the sections around 3:09, 4:30, 6:30, and 7:25-58.

http://www.streetfilms.org/velib/


----------



## Riverman (2 Jun 2010)

Has there been any research done on how many people use helmets that use the Paris velib system?

If there have been very few accidents, it's a pretty damning assessment of the need for cycle helmets.

Beware possible cycle helmet debate.

I didn't see a single person in that film wearing a helmet.


----------



## StuartG (2 Jun 2010)

Didn't see any Bicing users wearing helmets in Barcelona this year. Nor on this video: 
View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCNboaWtqIc


They were being well used. Involving helmets would probably impair the successful launch of both schemes and the environmentally and health outcomes. Its a balance of risks. People who feel the need can still carry and use ... and can try and convince users to join them. But the more important issue is first to get people biking.

So maybe we should avoid the helmet issue pro tem?


----------



## chap (2 Jun 2010)

Riverman said:


> Has there been any research done on how many people use helmets that use the Paris velib system?
> 
> If there have been very few accidents, it's a pretty damning assessment of the need for cycle helmets.
> 
> ...




There were a few people wearing helmets, chiefly those with the helmet cams, I think the advertising bloke was putting one on as well.

Fortunately, it is not mandatory to wear a helmet in order to use the scheme (it is aimed at grown ups though.) In central London, rightly or wrongly, I generally feel a bit safer than on many country roads or new cities, although I normally wear one regardless. Nonetheless, it is a personal choice so it is right that it is up to the user.

In Paris, I didn't notice many people wearing helmets, but then they really have gone over and beyond in order to accomodate the scheme. I mentioned before that before the scheme I used to speculate that the reason one never saw any fat Parisians was because one was dicing with death when crossing a road, after the scheme was launched I noticed a huge shift in the way drivers responded. Plus there is so much space for cyclists, it really is a place where one feels they belong to the city, easy to walk around, then cycle, then drive (in that order) unlike many towns and cities here, unfortunately. It is on this point that I am most hopeful.


----------



## Riverman (2 Jun 2010)

chap said:


> There were a few people wearing helmets, chiefly those with the helmet cams, I think the advertising bloke was putting one on as well.
> 
> Fortunately, it is not mandatory to wear a helmet in order to use the scheme (it is aimed at grown ups though.) In central London, rightly or wrongly, I generally feel a bit safer than on many country roads or new cities, although I normally wear one regardless. Nonetheless, it is a personal choice so it is right that it is up to the user.
> 
> In Paris, I didn't notice many people wearing helmets, but then they really have gone over and beyond in order to accomodate the scheme. I mentioned before that before the scheme I used to speculate that the reason one never saw any fat Parisians was because one was dicing with death when crossing a road, after the scheme was launched I noticed a huge shift in the way drivers responded. Plus there is so much space for cyclists, it really is a place where one feels they belong to the city, easy to walk around, then cycle, then drive (in that order) unlike many towns and cities here, unfortunately. It is on this point that I am most hopeful.



I'm just saying that with millions of journeys having been made on the paris bikes, it's in the 10s of thousands a day isn't it? And not a single report of someone falling off a bike and cracking their head open. Don't get me wrong, I'm very pro helmet wearing, however, the fact so few people are wearing helmets and so few people are injuring themselves would suggest that the helmet is a little redundant.

I'm sure people are falling off their bikes, just where are all the head injuries?

+ if it were a major problem there would be signs everywhere telling people to wear a helmet. Do these signs exist?

This just seems to underline that the average cyclist is in more danger of being run over by a lorry than falling off the bike whilst commuting in a city and sustaining a nasty head injury.


----------



## CopperBrompton (2 Jun 2010)

Oh god, can we please not start yet another f*ck*ng h*lm*t debate?!


----------



## marinyork (2 Jun 2010)

StuartG said:


> I don't think so. The bike thing fits in well in a multi-modal situation. It is easy to get into central London from pretty well anywhere in the suburbs (that's why the suburbs are there!). The difficulty is getting to the right part of central London. Some bits can be quite a walk from the nearest tube - like Condor's shop in Grays Inn Road for instance. Jumping on a bike for the last 500m would be nice. And it also provides the closest we will ever get to secure bike parking.



Trivially. We've already done that on these threads. My interest here is whether these freedom passes can get more interesting transport link ups outside of zone 1.


----------



## dellzeqq (3 Jun 2010)

if you look at the TfL blurb the intention seems simple enough - it will relieve congestion on the tube and the buses within zone 1, and be a cheaper alternative to taxis. 

Now, as Stuart says, this is a decent target - although I still think that hauling almost 24kg of bike up from the Embankment to The Strand will prove too much for some casual riders.

Ken's intention, one that struck me as over-ambitious, was to cover all 32 boroughs, and this coverage would be allied to the restraint of car traffic in suburban centres. Johnson got elected by the suburbs on the perception that the suburbs had been neglected, but, paradoxically, he's cancelled suburban transport schemes, and given up any pretence of controlling car traffic - so traffic in the 'doughnut' of zones 3 to 6 will be far, far worse than traffic in Westminster.

As for Freedom Passes, Marin, they cover the entire GL area. It does seem odd that the Velib isn't going to be compatible with Freedom Passes and Oyster cards.


----------



## StuartG (3 Jun 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> I still think that hauling almost 24kg of bike up from the Embankment to The Strand will prove too much for some casual riders.


My wife as a young nurse used to ride her single speed basketed Hercules up Blackheath Hill everyday. It felt a good 50lb to me!

A surprising number of people are naturally quite strong. What they do not have, unless they exercise regularly, is stamina. That may not be too much of a problem in a restricted 30 min Zone 1 situation.


----------



## chap (30 Jul 2010)

Well the glorious day has finally arrived, I for one will be very interested to hear about members experiences of it over the oncoming weeks - especially with regard to whether this is the catalyst that unifies the 'vehicularists', the 'segregationists', and normal cyclists as one by finally hitting critical mass.

*Barclay Cycle Hire Page*


*BBC*
Intro
User Reviews
Teething Problems

*Telegraph*

*Guardian*
On Montreal 
On Branding
List of Docking locations

*Daily Mail*
Pictures, and basic analysis

News has been generally positive, a few issues about helmets and other saftey concerns, then there were the opportunist grips, particularly poor was the effort from MoneyWise where the writer clearly misunderstood the scheme, it's geographical limits (Zone 1), and it's point, shoddy jounralism indeed. 

The Daily Mail strangely enough appear to have covered it well, there is even an interesting seemingly unrelated rant from LittleJohn which adds a nice bit of irony to the occasion.

The Guardian covered it from multiple angles, one pertinent point was made about the over-commercialisation of it from the Blue streets to the fact that we appear to be the only major city who has named their public cycle scheme directly after the company sponsor - unlike Barcelonas BICing, Paris' Vélib. In 10 years is it going to be the Barclay Cycle Scheme, or the 'Santander Spin' (Red superhighways, poor time keeping, and siestas ), personally I hope they call it LoCHS.

That aside, I believe that today is a important day for the city, UK cycle advocacy, and the nation. Let's hope it makes a positive difference.​


----------



## jonesy (31 Jul 2010)

Some extremely stupid comments in response to an article in the Independent...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/first-london-now-the-rest-of-britain-2040028.html

There is a depressing amount of negativity towards this, partly the sort of typical anti-cycling nonsense you'd expect from the usual places, partly people who want it to fail simply because they hate Boris...


----------



## chap (3 Aug 2010)

jonesy said:


> Some extremely stupid comments in response to an article in the Independent...
> 
> http://www.independe...in-2040028.html
> 
> There is a depressing amount of negativity towards this, partly the sort of typical anti-cycling nonsense you'd expect from the usual places, partly people who want it to fail simply because they hate Boris...




Just goes to show that mental acuity seldom correlates with physical maturity. 

It appears that the Independants' moderators have removed that fool 'Tom in Londons' comment about how he hoped (thought it would be worth it if) a few cyclists would die on the hire bikes if it led to the scheme being scrapped. 

Unfortunately, they blocked my reply which provided news links to the deaths of 4 cyclists all within a short space of time who had died due to poor street planning (barriers) and HGV's. Also made a point about how the Evening Standard thought it worthy to mention that the medic who had been struck, was not wearing a helmet.

A wasted post perhaps but I hope he read it, and I hope it made whoever saw it, hopefully more people than just myself, at least think about matters from the cyclists perspective.


----------



## sheddy (3 Aug 2010)

I fear that the medya at large are hoping that the hire scheme will fail.
Possibly because yer average journo just wants to carry on taking a cab each time and not have to consider any other option.


----------



## dellzeqq (4 Aug 2010)

a lot of hire bikes in motion. I saw 14 between Kennington and Islington and back to Kennington. Riders in all shapes and sizes and of all ages and ethnicities. 

One young man was clearly freaked out by the entire experience and was cycling down the footpath in Islington, unaware that the police take a dim view of that kind of thing, but most seemed to be making steady progress. 

I can't recall seeing a helmet on any of them, which is interesting.

The bikes are clearly pigs to ride, but the young man looking after the docking station in Kennington Road told me that a woman had claimed a twenty minute journey time from Kings Cross, which is pretty swift.


----------



## BigSteev (4 Aug 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> The bikes are clearly pigs to ride,



That depends on your basis of comparison. Sure, compared to your magnificent piece of Italian engineering it would be, and true, I wouldn't consider one for a FNRTTC, but for their intended purpose, they're actually perfectly fine to ride.


----------



## dellzeqq (4 Aug 2010)

BigSteev said:


> That depends on your basis of comparison. Sure, compared to your magnificent piece of Italian engineering it would be, and true, I wouldn't consider one for a FNRTTC, but for their intended purpose, they're actually perfectly fine to ride.


fair enough, but I'd also compare them unfavourably with a cheap hybrid.


----------



## chap (31 Aug 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> fair enough, but I'd also compare them unfavourably with a cheap hybrid.



A tad harsh there Dell boy. I have used the Boris Bikes quite a bit now, and whilst I was initially exhausted due to the high cadence from a particular model (one exception to the rest methinks) I think they are actually rather good: sturdy, smooth, with swift handling - an alliteration of praise.

And it appears to have had its effect, many-a-times since the launch have I heard an 'unlikely' candidate proclaim that they would never have thought that London was so beautiful by bike, so cyclable, or the experience liberating, convenient, etc; all thanks to a swift introduction from the Boris Bike. 

It just shows that despite the tabloid scaremongering and slander, people still respect and look to the government and councils for advice and direction; therefore if the council implies that cycling is bad/dangerous, parading a wide assortment of sub-par facilities to prove it, then that remains the publics perception, and becomes a deep-seated opinion amongst the citizenry. 

However, when the idea of cycling ( as green scalable transport ) is embraced and facilities provided (even with issues as the Barclays™ scheme has plenty of) then people will naturally gravitate to what is more convenient. This is bound to result in more people purchasing bikes (as is the case in Paris.)

Then again, the scheme (whilst brilliant) does need the following:


*Convenient locations for docking stations* - eg. outside major stations, landmarks, and also in Westminster
*Better signage* - to docking stations from major locations (e.g. Victoria Station) and across the city to other landmarks
*Better distribution* - when a docking station is empty, that's a problem, when the Serco van completely fills a locations docking stations, it's a costly problem
Of course, more bikes and docking stations wouldn't go amiss - especially around Fulham, Chelsea, and Lambeth


----------



## chap (31 Aug 2010)

I must add that, in spite of increasing numbers, I have noticed the number of casually-dressed women cyclists escalate. Compare that to those miserable commutes where the main people, one saw, on bikes were miserable looking middle-aged blokes atop racing bikes with garish branded lycra suits.

When there are more women, younger, and elder people cycling, then this proves that the activity is not just a sport, nor a dangerous one at that, but a safe and viable means of transport plus a fun and liberating experience.

So now with London leading the way, lets hope that the rest of the country emulates. I'm certain that London shall change the face of cycling in the UK


----------



## dellzeqq (9 Sep 2010)

chap said:


> I must add that, in spite of increasing numbers, I have noticed the number of casually-dressed women cyclists escalate. *Compare that to those miserable commutes where the main people, one saw, on bikes were miserable looking middle-aged blokes atop racing bikes with garish branded lycra suits.*
> 
> When there are more women, younger, and elder people cycling, then this proves that the activity is not just a sport, nor a dangerous one at that, but a safe and viable means of transport plus a fun and liberating experience.
> 
> So now with London leading the way, lets hope that the rest of the country emulates. I'm certain that London shall change the face of cycling in the UK


Ahem! (Not all the time, though)

You're right of course. The spread of people has changed dramatically, and it's now far more representative of the population as a whole.

I took note of three docking stands today - the first, in Amwell Street, was completely empty. The second, in Farringdon Road, was 100% full. The third, just north of Blackfriars was also 100% full.

It must be the devil's own job to balance all these up. The electric tractor/trailer thingy must never, ever rest.


----------

