Boris's £50 a day commuter bikes are daft

2»

Comments

  • il_principe
    il_principe Posts: 9,155
    bice wrote:
    Il Principe wrote:
    bice wrote:

    If you had £57 million to spend to improve cycling in London would you have blown this figure on a modest cycle hire scheme for mainly recreational users?

    Wouldn't secure 24-hour parking at railway stations have been better (so commuters can leave their bikes in town) or a kerbed cycle lane along the Embankment, or massive restriction on non-commercial vehicles in the centre?

    Do you actually cycle in London??

    Only every day.

    And yet you think a kerbed cycle lane on embankment of all places would be a good idea? It would be a fcking terrible idea.
  • bice
    bice Posts: 772
    Il Principe wrote:
    bice wrote:
    Il Principe wrote:
    bice wrote:

    If you had £57 million to spend to improve cycling in London would you have blown this figure on a modest cycle hire scheme for mainly recreational users?

    Wouldn't secure 24-hour parking at railway stations have been better (so commuters can leave their bikes in town) or a kerbed cycle lane along the Embankment, or massive restriction on non-commercial vehicles in the centre?

    Do you actually cycle in London??

    Only every day.

    And yet you think a kerbed cycle lane on embankment of all places would be a good idea? It would be a fcking terrible idea.

    Well, I don't use it very often, thank God, though I did to an office party in Cheyne Walk last week. I have ridden it with my daughter at weekends.

    I think dedicated cycle lanes like Copenhagen are the way to go, and drastically restricting private motor vehicle use in the city centre would get more people on bikes than a modest hire scheme that isn't interested in encouraging rail commuters to cycle.

    Quite a few posters here have mentioned the deterrent effect of the London traffic. Isn't that a good place to start?
  • W1
    W1 Posts: 2,636
    bice wrote:
    OK, I concede you have a point about the charges and these do have to be sharp to prevent pratting about. (Although I reckon it can easily take more than half an hour to get from, say, London Bridge to Hyde Park corner in bad traffic, and then charges kick in.)

    But these bikes are equivalent of £9,500 each - so far, before thefts, breakages etc add to the scheme's costs - and are not going to be available near railway stations.

    If you had £57 million to spend to improve cycling in London would you have blown this figure on a modest cycle hire scheme for mainly recreational users?

    Wouldn't secure 24-hour parking at railway stations have been better (so commuters can leave their bikes in town) or a kerbed cycle lane along the Embankment, or massive restriction on non-commercial vehicles in the centre?

    The iniative is gesture politics, surely? (And the mayor is anti-congestion charge and pro 4x4 Chelsea Tractor use). Where is the coherence?

    It will be triumphed in the Standard (of course), but just buying 285,000 £200 hybrids and handing them out might have been more effective.

    The bikes have to be rugged and usable by all - so £200 hybrids wouldn't work.
    It will generate an income which, I would presume, would cover the running costs at least.
    It will take a few thousand people off public transport - the value of which is immeasurable in terms of comfort and overcrowding.
    And the mayor is very pro-cycling, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make there?
    I think it's a great idea - get more people cycling, it's faster, cheaper and more convenient than the tube and will hopefully add to the "safety in numbers" for cyclists in London.

    PS - a kerbed cycle lane along the Embankment?! Are you mad? How would we SCR?
  • jedster
    jedster Posts: 1,717
    Wouldn't secure 24-hour parking at railway stations have been better (so commuters can leave their bikes in town)

    I leave a bike at Paddington. Don't have a problem with the existing facilities. Of course I'm sensible - use a good lock and don't use a highly attractive bike. This wouldnt be a priority for me.
    or a kerbed cycle lane along the Embankment
    I'm not a big fan of cycle lanes or cycle paths to be honest. The lay out of London is not very amenable to them.
    or massive restriction on non-commercial vehicles in the centre?
    Eh? What with parking and congestion charges I think this is pretty well covered. I think cycling in London is fine IF YOU KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING. That's why I think cycle training is the way forward.
  • lost_in_thought
    lost_in_thought Posts: 10,563
    jedster wrote:
    Wouldn't secure 24-hour parking at railway stations have been better (so commuters can leave their bikes in town)

    I leave a bike at Paddington. Don't have a problem with the existing facilities. Of course I'm sensible - use a good lock and don't use a highly attractive bike. This wouldnt be a priority for me.

    Me neither - I commuted from Liverpool Street for 3 years and left a bike there with no difficulty. I used a decent lock though.
    jedster wrote:
    or a kerbed cycle lane along the Embankment
    I'm not a big fan of cycle lanes or cycle paths to be honest. The lay out of London is not very amenable to them.

    +1 - I seem to recall a poll on here which was very damning for separated cycle lanes. I personally don't like them at all, especially the kerbed ones.

    J, out of curiosity, why don't you think the layout of London is amenable to them?

    Bice, you cycle along the embankment with your daughter? :shock: How old is she? There are alternate east-west routes, y'know... nicer ones...
    FCN 7/1
    Viner Maxima, Tifosi CK7, Giant Bowery, Old commuter.
  • Specialized Needs
    Specialized Needs Posts: 802
    bice wrote:
    OK, I concede you have a point about the charges and these do have to be sharp to prevent pratting about. (Although I reckon it can easily take more than half an hour to get from, say, London Bridge to Hyde Park corner in bad traffic, and then charges kick in.)
    Thank you for the concession. I am not a spinmeister. I think there are faults in the scheme (see below), but I think attacking some of the deliberate and defensible design points of the scheme will distract from the reasoned objections and create straw men that certain sections will jump on. By the way, nothing to stop you dropping off and picking up on the way. That's what I'd do.
    bice wrote:
    But these bikes are equivalent of £9,500 each - so far, before thefts, breakages etc add to the scheme's costs - and are not going to be available near railway stations.
    Dealt with by others. Stations are crowded enough already - very few stations where I would want inexperienced cyclists mixing with the buses and taxis, and I imagine they are part of the target user demographic
    bice wrote:
    If you had £57 million to spend to improve cycling in London would you have blown this figure on a modest cycle hire scheme for mainly recreational users?
    I contest that it is for 'recreational' users. As others have said, it seems to be aimed at short (zone 1) journeys. Personally I won't use it as I cycle in to town. I am also disappointed by the £1/day or £45/annum fixed charge and the lack of integration with the Oyster card. Those would be the targets of my ire with this scheme.
    bice wrote:
    Wouldn't secure 24-hour parking at railway stations have been better (so commuters can leave their bikes in town)
    Depends on the target audience (as mentioned above). I wouldn't say no to such a scheme, but difficult to say whether I'd say it was better
    bice wrote:
    or a kerbed cycle lane along the Embankment,
    NO! I am vehemently against segregation. We all need to share the road and be considerate to each other (cyclists, too). Anything that might give more people a cyclist's eye point of view should help
    bice wrote:
    or massive restriction on non-commercial vehicles in the centre?
    I would agree, but I doubt £57 million would have been enough even to push it through the legislature, let alone enforce it. I'd go for training, but again, is that the target group?
    bice wrote:
    The iniative is gesture politics, surely?
    Possibly, but it provides a possible toe-hold. If it encourages more people to experience cycling then perhaps empathy and support for cycling and cyclists will grow (if some idiots don't spoil it with their highly visible arrogant behaviour)
    bice wrote:
    (And the mayor is anti-congestion charge and pro 4x4 Chelsea Tractor use)
    So that makes him anti-cycling? Perhaps he realises that '4x4 Chelsea Tractor use' is going to be self limiting as fuel prices rise? Perhaps he will come up with a second scheme to encourage use by the schoolchildren who are transported in these vehicles? Perhaps we should look at ways of taking what is offered (and politically acceptable) and how to exploit it and put it possibly to better or more imaginative uses than first thought?
    bice wrote:
    Where is the coherence?
    I agree - where is the Oyster link?
    bice wrote:
    It will be triumphed in the Standard (of course), but just buying 285,000 £200 hybrids and handing them out might have been more effective.
    Brick Lane would have been put out of business - I think you've hit on something there :wink:
  • fnegroni
    fnegroni Posts: 794
    lost_in_thought wrote:
    I don't think many tourists will use it though, they'll be scared of navigational issues and London traffic, and not unfairly - I spent most of my first few weeks on a bike in London getting lost! Look out for numpties on hire bikes though.

    Having recently ridden in Paris... but admittedly limited riding in London.

    I'd rather cycle in London than Paris. Yet I would still cycle in Paris.

    I lost count of the number of red lights I jumped, one ways I went the wrong way up, just to avoid being rammed by some 'artistic' driving...

    Honestly: you think traffic in London is bad, go to Paris or Milan (where I am from), where they have similar schemes, and you'll be amazed!
    http://wokinghamcyclist.blogspot.com
  • fnegroni
    fnegroni Posts: 794
    lost_in_thought wrote:
    +1 - I seem to recall a poll on here which was very damning for separated cycle lanes. I personally don't like them at all, especially the kerbed ones.

    Both options should be available: I take my boy to school. I use cycle tracks when available and they are by far the better option, since I am going very slowly, and likely to need to stop to check on him, and don't want to risk a numpty coming into me.

    But I also cycle very fast on the road, and prefer the width and visibility of the road to the narrow sections of cycle tracks.

    Segregation is not the right term, cause it implies the road would then be off-limits.

    I prefer the term cycle tracks, or even cycle-superhighways.

    Just like motorways, they enable faster safer transport, yet vehicles are free to choose!

    They work in Copenhagen, and that didn't happen overnight. They have been working on their cycling culture for the past few decades.

    It can work elsewhere, here!

    One thing though: don't make helmets compulsory any time soon, or no-one will be find riding convenient.
    Helmets do make you safer, but don't make people want to cycle. And that's a far bigger and better battle to fight for!
    (together with better training for both riders *and* drivers)
    http://wokinghamcyclist.blogspot.com
  • bice
    bice Posts: 772
    Specialized Needs wrote:
    bice wrote:
    OK, I concede you have a point about the charges and these do have to be sharp to prevent pratting about. (Although I reckon it can easily take more than half an hour to get from, say, London Bridge to Hyde Park corner in bad traffic, and then charges kick in.)
    Thank you for the concession. I am not a spinmeister. I think there are faults in the scheme (see below), but I think attacking some of the deliberate and defensible design points of the scheme will distract from the reasoned objections and create straw men that certain sections will jump on. By the way, nothing to stop you dropping off and picking up on the way. That's what I'd do.
    bice wrote:
    But these bikes are equivalent of £9,500 each - so far, before thefts, breakages etc add to the scheme's costs - and are not going to be available near railway stations.
    Dealt with by others. Stations are crowded enough already - very few stations where I would want inexperienced cyclists mixing with the buses and taxis, and I imagine they are part of the target user demographic
    bice wrote:
    If you had £57 million to spend to improve cycling in London would you have blown this figure on a modest cycle hire scheme for mainly recreational users?
    I contest that it is for 'recreational' users. As others have said, it seems to be aimed at short (zone 1) journeys. Personally I won't use it as I cycle in to town. I am also disappointed by the £1/day or £45/annum fixed charge and the lack of integration with the Oyster card. Those would be the targets of my ire with this scheme.
    bice wrote:
    Wouldn't secure 24-hour parking at railway stations have been better (so commuters can leave their bikes in town)
    Depends on the target audience (as mentioned above). I wouldn't say no to such a scheme, but difficult to say whether I'd say it was better
    bice wrote:
    or a kerbed cycle lane along the Embankment,
    NO! I am vehemently against segregation. We all need to share the road and be considerate to each other (cyclists, too). Anything that might give more people a cyclist's eye point of view should help
    bice wrote:
    or massive restriction on non-commercial vehicles in the centre?
    I would agree, but I doubt £57 million would have been enough even to push it through the legislature, let alone enforce it. I'd go for training, but again, is that the target group?
    bice wrote:
    The iniative is gesture politics, surely?
    Possibly, but it provides a possible toe-hold. If it encourages more people to experience cycling then perhaps empathy and support for cycling and cyclists will grow (if some idiots don't spoil it with their highly visible arrogant behaviour)
    bice wrote:
    (And the mayor is anti-congestion charge and pro 4x4 Chelsea Tractor use)
    So that makes him anti-cycling? Perhaps he realises that '4x4 Chelsea Tractor use' is going to be self limiting as fuel prices rise? Perhaps he will come up with a second scheme to encourage use by the schoolchildren who are transported in these vehicles? Perhaps we should look at ways of taking what is offered (and politically acceptable) and how to exploit it and put it possibly to better or more imaginative uses than first thought?
    bice wrote:
    Where is the coherence?
    I agree - where is the Oyster link?
    bice wrote:
    It will be triumphed in the Standard (of course), but just buying 285,000 £200 hybrids and handing them out might have been more effective.
    Brick Lane would have been put out of business - I think you've hit on something there :wink:

    I would just add that dealing with London traffic is the single most important issue to encourage cycling in the city.

    Regarding segregation of traffic, it is sometimes essential and would be beneficial on long straight, dual carriageways. (Some cycle tracks, ie Richmond Park, where cyclists and pedestrians are supposed to share show that cyclists are just as big sods as motorists once they have the whiphand.)

    I think it is inconsistent of Boris to oppose congestion charge (and support 4x4s) and champion cycling. Getting private cars out of central London during the daytime is essential. (In the 1950s the governor of the Bank of England used to get the Tube, while even middling execs are too grand for that now.)

    I think this scheme is largely irrelevant and would probably have been better done by some Ken-style community funding to out-of-work young people. (Yes, the bikes would have been rickety, the admin weak and some money have gone astray. But that's social investment for you.)

    £57 million, so far, is not peanuts.

Categories