London shall change the face of cycling in the UK

[Dan B]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Wil vandalism ruin the LCHS

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]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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...