..and so, having journeyed to work, and awaiting the return of the Men of Steel, having given thanks to the Ken the God of all Bus Lanes for having the 38 and 73 buses keep the tarmac free of ice (I imagine that Tavistock Square's hommage to Groningen is like a skating rink right now) I return to the theme......
...of the 73 and 38 buses. Sometime earlier this year I watched those two lines start out from Victoria. One 73 bendybus (God bless bendybuses and all who ride in them) pulled out from Victoria every three minutes - full to the gunwales. One 38 bendybus (ditto) pulled out every three minutes. That's almost 100 bus passengers a minute on just two lines. Now, I know a thing or two about getting cyclists out of Victoria Station - in fact I probably know as much as anybody on the subject. There is no way you're going to get 100 Bromptonistes a minute out of Victoria station. And I am telling you that Victoria is not Centraal station - there is nowhere that you are going to store the number of bikes that you would need to put those hundred folk a minute on bikes.
Some things bikes do brilliantly. People find their potential in cycling, they find an inner peace, they find the beauty of nature and the wonder of cities. Bicycles are (almost) democratic, they're aids to conversation, and they can play a part in making cities more congenial. They can bolster local high street and corner shop trade rather than hypermarket trade. They give kids independence. Rumour has it they're cheap. They require little or no public investment. But mass transit in 9 million people cities - they help, certainly, and could help London a great deal more than they do now, but they're not the biggest, quickest fix, which is always going to be trains and buses delivering people within walking distance of their destination. And here's the saddest thing. A congenial city is, among other things, a city that allows my mum, (or a seven year old) to cross the road when and where she wants. How do cycle lanes do that? They don't. They just make it more difficult. How do cycle lanes help small shops in high streets - they don't - they cut off the frontage. How do cycle lanes help wheelchair users? I leave that one to you.
Stowie mentioned two things that really could do with expanding on. Strict liability insurance is, potentially, the biggest thing for cycling you can imagine. In 1970s Vancouver the state owned monopoly car insurance company told drivers they wouldn't be covered if they hit a pedestrian. Result - pedestrians stepped off the kerb with the air of seaside promenaders. vehiclle speeds dropped to 25mph on broad suburban streets and cyclists multiplied like rabbits in a city in which the climate is rubbish (I remember it raining every day in August). So - strict liability insurance could change our streets for the better, reduce speed, reduce injuries, and cost, in aggregate, nothing at all.
The other point he made was about Hyde Park. There's no question that the paths parallel to Park Lane are a good thing. The question is - what's the potential of paths across parks? I'm pretty gloomy about them. I accept that they give cyclists a competitive advantage, I accept that they increase permeability, and that they offer another layer of oversight which may deter crime. On the other hand - some of us who campaigned for the path across Tooting Common back in the 80s have to recognise the resentment that's caused by cyclists effectively cutting the common in half - as we have to recognise that the small number of cyclists on canal towpaths are not neccessarily an ornament. I suspect that circumstances alter cases. The path across Clapham Common, which affords cyclists a safe and convenient route from Streatham, Balham, Clapham and points south to Chelsea Bridge seems to work well, but then it's not as well used as one would imagine it could be. The general point is that there is a heirarchy of provision and that pedestrians, not cyclists, are at the top of that heirarchy.
And - the steel men are here, the carpenters are here, the sparks is here!
...of the 73 and 38 buses. Sometime earlier this year I watched those two lines start out from Victoria. One 73 bendybus (God bless bendybuses and all who ride in them) pulled out from Victoria every three minutes - full to the gunwales. One 38 bendybus (ditto) pulled out every three minutes. That's almost 100 bus passengers a minute on just two lines. Now, I know a thing or two about getting cyclists out of Victoria Station - in fact I probably know as much as anybody on the subject. There is no way you're going to get 100 Bromptonistes a minute out of Victoria station. And I am telling you that Victoria is not Centraal station - there is nowhere that you are going to store the number of bikes that you would need to put those hundred folk a minute on bikes.
Some things bikes do brilliantly. People find their potential in cycling, they find an inner peace, they find the beauty of nature and the wonder of cities. Bicycles are (almost) democratic, they're aids to conversation, and they can play a part in making cities more congenial. They can bolster local high street and corner shop trade rather than hypermarket trade. They give kids independence. Rumour has it they're cheap. They require little or no public investment. But mass transit in 9 million people cities - they help, certainly, and could help London a great deal more than they do now, but they're not the biggest, quickest fix, which is always going to be trains and buses delivering people within walking distance of their destination. And here's the saddest thing. A congenial city is, among other things, a city that allows my mum, (or a seven year old) to cross the road when and where she wants. How do cycle lanes do that? They don't. They just make it more difficult. How do cycle lanes help small shops in high streets - they don't - they cut off the frontage. How do cycle lanes help wheelchair users? I leave that one to you.
Stowie mentioned two things that really could do with expanding on. Strict liability insurance is, potentially, the biggest thing for cycling you can imagine. In 1970s Vancouver the state owned monopoly car insurance company told drivers they wouldn't be covered if they hit a pedestrian. Result - pedestrians stepped off the kerb with the air of seaside promenaders. vehiclle speeds dropped to 25mph on broad suburban streets and cyclists multiplied like rabbits in a city in which the climate is rubbish (I remember it raining every day in August). So - strict liability insurance could change our streets for the better, reduce speed, reduce injuries, and cost, in aggregate, nothing at all.
The other point he made was about Hyde Park. There's no question that the paths parallel to Park Lane are a good thing. The question is - what's the potential of paths across parks? I'm pretty gloomy about them. I accept that they give cyclists a competitive advantage, I accept that they increase permeability, and that they offer another layer of oversight which may deter crime. On the other hand - some of us who campaigned for the path across Tooting Common back in the 80s have to recognise the resentment that's caused by cyclists effectively cutting the common in half - as we have to recognise that the small number of cyclists on canal towpaths are not neccessarily an ornament. I suspect that circumstances alter cases. The path across Clapham Common, which affords cyclists a safe and convenient route from Streatham, Balham, Clapham and points south to Chelsea Bridge seems to work well, but then it's not as well used as one would imagine it could be. The general point is that there is a heirarchy of provision and that pedestrians, not cyclists, are at the top of that heirarchy.
And - the steel men are here, the carpenters are here, the sparks is here!
.
